III. Henry, Part II. chs. III.-VI. Comp. his
small biography, pp. 165-196.—Dyer,
ch. III.—Stähelin, bk. IV. (vol.
I. 319 sqq.).—Kampschulte, I.
385-480. This is the end of his work; vols. II. and III. were prevented by his
premature death (Dec. 3, 1872), and intrusted to Professor Cornelius of Munich
(a friend and colleague of the late Dr. Döllinger), but he has so far only
published a few papers on special points, in the Transactions of the Munich
Academy. See p. 230. Merle D'Aubigné,
bk. XI. chs. XXII.-XXIV. (vol. VII. 73 sqq.). These are his last chapters on
Calvin, coming down to February, 1542; the continuation was prevented by his
death in 1872.

§ 99. Calvin's Idea of the Holy Catholic Church.

During his sojourn at
Strassburg, Calvin matured his views on the Church and the Sacraments, and
embodied them in the fourth book of the second edition of his Institutes,
which appeared in the same year as his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans
(1539). His ideal was high and comprehensive, far beyond what he was able to
realize in the little district of Geneva. "In no respect, perhaps,"
says a distinguished Scotch Presbyterian scholar,648"are the Institutes more
remarkable than in a certain comprehensiveness and catholicity of tone, which
to many will appear strangely associated with his name. But Calvin was far too
enlightened not to recognize the grandeur of the Catholic idea which had
descended through so many ages; this idea had, in truth, for such a mind as
his, special attractions, and his own system mainly sought to give to the same
idea a new and higher form. The narrowness and intolerance of his
ecclesiastical rule did not so much spring out of the general principles laid
down in the Institutes, as from his special interpretation and
application of these principles."

When Paul was a prisoner in
Rome, chained to a heathen soldier, and when Christianity was confined to a
small band of humble believers scattered through a hostile world, he described
to the Ephesians his sublime conception of the Church as the mystical
"body of Christ, the fulness of Him who filleth all in all." Yet in the same and other epistles he finds
it necessary to warn the members of this holy brotherhood even against such
vulgar vices as theft, intemperance, and fornication. The contradiction is only
apparent, and disappears in the distinction between the ideal and the real, the
essential and the phenomenal, the Church as it is in the mind of Christ and the
Church as it is in the masses of nominal Christians.

The same apparent contradiction
we find in Calvin, in Luther, and other Reformers. They cherished the deepest
respect for the holy Catholic Church of Christ, and yet felt it their duty to
protest with all their might against the abuses and corruptions of the actual
Church of their age, and especially against the papal hierarchy which ruled it
with despotic power. We may go further back to the protest of the Hebrew
Prophets against the corrupt priesthood. Christ himself, who recognized the
divine economy of the history of Israel, and came to fulfil the Law and the
Prophets, attacked with withering severity the self-righteousness and hypocrisy
of the Scribes and Pharisees who sat in Moses' seat, and was condemned by the
high priest and the Jewish hierarchy to the death of the cross. These
scriptural antecedents help very much to understand and to justify the course
of the Reformers.

Nothing can be more truly
Catholic than Calvin's description of the historic Church. It reminds one of
the finest passages in St. Cyprian and St. Augustin. After explaining the
meaning of the article of the Apostles' Creed on the holy Catholic Church, as
embracing not only the visible Church, but all God's elect, living and
departed, he thus speaks of the visible or historic Catholic Church:649

"As our present design is
to treat of the visible Church, we may learn even from the title of mother, how
useful and even necessary it is for us to know her; since there is no other way
of entrance into life, unless we are conceived by her, born of her, nourished
at her breast, and continually preserved under her care and government till we
are divested of this mortal flesh and become I like the angels' (Matt. 22:30).
For our infirmity will not admit of our dismission from her school; we must
continue under her instruction and discipline to the end of our lives. It is
also to be remarked that out of her bosom there can be no hope of remission of
sins, or any salvation, according to the testimony of Isaiah (37:32) and Joel
(2:32); which is confirmed by Ezekiel (13:9), when he denounces that those whom
God excludes from the heavenly life shalt not be enrolled among his people. So,
on the contrary, those who devote themselves to the service of God are said to
inscribe their names among the citizens of Jerusalem. For which reason the
Psalmist says, 'Remember me, O Lord, with the favor that thou bearest unto thy
people: O visit me with thy salvation, that I may see the prosperity of thy
chosen, that I may rejoice in the gladness of thy nation, that I may glory with
thine inheritance' (Ps106:4, 5). In these words the paternal favor of God, and
the peculiar testimony of the spiritual life, are restricted to his flock, to
teach us that it is always fatally dangerous to be separated from the
Church."650

So strong are the claims of the
visible Church upon us that even abounding corruptions cannot justify a
secession. Reasoning against the Anabaptists and other radicals who endeavored
to build up a new Church of converts directly from the Bible, without any
regard to the intervening historical Church, he says:651

"Dreadful are those
descriptions in which Isaiah, Jeremiah, Joel, Habakkuk, and others, deplore the
disorders of the Church at Jerusalem. There was such general and extreme
corruption in the people, in the magistrates, and in the priests that Isaiah
does not hesitate to compare Jerusalem to Sodom and Gomorrah. Religion was
partly despised, partly corrupted. Their manners were generally disgraced by
thefts, robberies, treacheries, murders, and similar crimes.

"Nevertheless, the Prophets
on this account neither raised themselves new churches, nor built new altars
for the oblation of separate sacrifices; but whatever were the characters of
the people, yet because they considered that God had deposited his word among
that nation, and instituted the ceremonies in which he was there worshipped,
they lifted up pure hands to him even in the congregation of the impious. If
they had thought that they contracted any contagion from these services, surely
they would have suffered a hundred deaths rather than have permitted themselves
to be dragged to them. There was nothing, therefore, to prevent their departure
from them, but the desire of preserving the unity of the Church.

"But if the holy Prophets
were restrained by a sense of duty from forsaking the Church on account of the
numerous and enormous crimes which were practiced, not by a few individuals,
but almost by the whole nation, it is extreme arrogance in us, if we presume
immediately to withdraw from the communion of a Church, where the conduct of
all the members is not compatible either with our judgment or even with the
Christian profession.

"Now what kind of an age
was that of Christ and his Apostles?
Yet the desperate impiety of the Pharisees, and the dissolute lives
everywhere led by the people, could not prevent them from using the same
sacrifices, and assembling in the same temple with others, for the public
exercises of religion. How did this happen, but from a knowledge that the
society of the wicked could not contaminate those who, with pure consciences,
united with them in the same solemnities.

"If any one pay no
deference to the Prophets and the Apostles, let him at least acquiesce in the
authority of Christ. Cyprian has excellently remarked: 'Although tares, or
impure vessels, are found in the Church, yet this is not a reason why we should
withdraw from it. It only behooves us to labor that we may be the wheat, and to
use our utmost endeavors and exertions that we may be vessels of gold or of
silver. But to break in pieces the vessels of earth belongs to the Lord alone,
to whom a rod of iron is also given. Nor let any one arrogate to himself what
is the exclusive province of the Son of God, by pretending to fan the floor,
clear away the chaff, and separate all the tares by the judgment of man. This
is proud obstinacy, and sacrilegious presumption, originating in a corrupt
frenzy.'

"Let these two points,
then, be considered as decided: first, that he who voluntarily deserts the
external communion of the Church where the Word of God is preached, and the
sacraments are administered, is without any excuse; secondly, that the faults
either of few persons or of many form no obstacles to a due profession of our
faith in the use of the ceremonies instituted by God; because the pious
conscience is not wounded by the unworthiness of any other individual, whether
he be a pastor or a private person; nor are the mysteries less pure and
salutary to a holy and upright man, because they are received at the same time
by the impure."

How, then, with such high
churchly views, could Calvin justify his separation from the Roman Church in
which he was born and trained? He
vindicated his position in the Answer to Sadolet, from which we have given
large extracts.652 He did it
more fully in his masterly work, "On the Necessity of Reforming the
Church," which, "in the name of all who wish Christ to reign,"
he addressed to the Emperor Charles V. and the Diet to be assembled at Speier
in February, 1544. It is replete with weighty arguments and accurate learning,
and by far one of the ablest controversial books of that age.653 The following is a passage bearing upon this point:654

"The last and principal
charge which they bring against us is, that we have made a schism in the
Church. And here they fiercely maintain against us, that for no reason is it
lawful to break the unity of the Church. How far they do us injustice the books
of our authors bear witness. Now, however, let them take this brief reply—that
we neither dissent from the Church, nor are aliens from her communion. But, as
by this specious name of Church, they are wont to cast dust in the eyes even of
persons otherwise pious and right-hearted, I beseech your Imperial Majesty, and
you, Most Illustrious Princes, first, to divest yourselves of all prejudice,
that you may give an impartial ear to our defence; secondly, not to be
instantly terrified on hearing the name of Church, but to remember that the
Prophets and Apostles had, with the pretended Church of their days, a contest
similar to that which you see us have in the present day with the Roman pontiff
and his whole train. When they, by the command of God, inveighed freely against
idolatry, superstition, and the profanation of the temple, and its sacred
rites, against the carelessness and lethargy of priests,—and against the
general avarice, cruelty, and licentiousness, they were constantly met with the
objection which our opponents have ever in their mouths—that by dissenting from
the common opinion, they violated the unity of the Church. The ordinary
government of the Church was then vested in the priests. They had not
presumptuously arrogated it to themselves, but God had conferred it upon them
by his law. It would occupy too much time to point out all the instances. Let
us, therefore, be contented with a single instance, in the case of Jeremiah.

"He had to do with the
whole college of priests, and the arms with which they attacked him were these:
'Come, and let us devise devices against Jeremiah; for the law shall not perish
from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophet'
(Jer. 18:18). They had among them a high priest, to reject whose judgment was a
capital crime, and they had the whole order to which God himself had committed
the government of the Jewish Church concurring with them. If the unity of the
Church is violated by him, who, instructed solely by Divine truth, opposes
himself to ordinary authority, the Prophet must be a schismatic; because, not
at all deterred by such menaces from warring with the impiety of the priests,
he steadily persevered.

"That the eternal truth of
God preached by the Prophets and Apostles, is on our side, we are prepared to
show, and it is indeed easy for any man to perceive. But all that is done is to
assail us with this battering-ram, 'Nothing can excuse withdrawal from the
Church.' We deny out and out that we do
so. With what, then, do they urge us?
With nothing more than this, that to them belongs the ordinary
government of the Church. But how much better right had the enemies of Jeremiah
to use this argument? To them, at all
events, there still remained a legal priesthood, instituted by God; so that
their vocation was unquestionable. Those who in the present day have the name
of prelates, cannot prove their vocation by any laws, human or divine. Be it,
however, that in this respect both are on a footing, still, unless they previously
convict the holy Prophet of schism, they will prove nothing against us by that
specious title of Church.

"I have thus mentioned one
Prophet as an example. But all the others declare that they had the same battle
to fight—wicked priests endeavoring to overwhelm them by a perversion of this
term Church. And how did the Apostles act?
Was it not necessary for them, in professing themselves the servants of
Christ, to declare war upon the synagogue ?
And yet the office and dignity of the priesthood were not then lost. But
it will be said that, though the Prophets and Apostles dissented from wicked
priests in doctrine, they still cultivated communion with them in sacrifices
and prayers. I admit they did, provided they were not forced into idolatry. But
which of the Prophets do we read of as having ever sacrificed in Bethel? Which of the faithful, do we suppose,
communicated in impure sacrifices, when the temple was polluted by Antiochus,
and profane rites were introduced into it?

"On the whole, we conclude
that the servants of God never felt themselves obstructed by this empty title
of Church, when it was put forward to support the reign of impiety. It is not
enough, therefore, simply to throw out the name of Church, but judgment must be
used to ascertain which is the true Church, and what is the nature of its
unity. And the thing necessary to be attended to, first of all, is, to beware
of separating the Church from Christ, its Head. When I say Christ, I include
the doctrine of his gospel which he sealed with his blood. Our adversaries,
therefore, if they would persuade us that they are the true Church must, first
of all, show that the true doctrine of God is among them; and this is the
meaning of what we often repeat, viz. that the uniform characteristics of a
well-ordered Church are the preaching of sound doctrine, and the pure
administration of the Sacraments. For, since Paul declares (Eph. 2:20) that the
Church is 'built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets,' it
necessarily follows that any church not resting on this foundation must
immediately fall.

"I come now to our
opponents.

"They, no doubt, boast in
lofty terms that Christ is on their side. As soon as they exhibit him in their
word we will believe it, but not sooner. They, in the same way, insist on the
term Church. But where, we ask, is that doctrine which Paul declares to be the
only foundation of the Church?
Doubtless, your Imperial Majesty now sees that there is a vast
difference between assailing us with the reality and assailing us only with the
name of Church. We are as ready to confess as they are that those who abandon
the Church, the common mother of the faithful, the 'pillar and ground of the
truth,' revolt from Christ also; but we mean a Church which, from incorruptible
seed, begets children for immortality, and, when begotten, nourishes them with
spiritual food (that seed and food being the Word of God), and which, by its
ministry, preserves entire the truth which God deposited in its bosom. This
mark is in no degree doubtful, in no degree fallacious, and it is the mark
which God himself impressed upon his Church, that she might be discerned
thereby. Do we seem unjust in demanding to see this mark? Wherever it exists not, no face of a Church
is seen. If the name, merely, is put forward, we have only to quote the
well-known passage of Jeremiah, 'Trust ye not in lying words, saying, the
temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, are these'
(Jer. 7:4). Is this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers
in your eyes?' (Jer. 7:11).

"In like manner, the unity
of the Church, such as Paul describes it, we protest we hold sacred, and we
denounce anathema against all who in any way violate it. The principle from
which Paul derives unity is, that there is 'one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
one God and Father of all,' who hath called us into one hope (Eph. 4:4-6).
Therefore, we are one body and one spirit, as is here enjoined, if we adhere to
God only, i.e. be bound to each other by the tie of faith. We ought,
moreover, to remember what is said in another passage, 'that faith cometh by
the word of God.' Let it, therefore, be
a fixed point, that a holy unity exists amongst us, when, consenting in pure
doctrine, we are united in Christ alone. And, indeed, if concurrence in any
kind of doctrine were sufficient, in what possible way could the Church of God
be distinguished from the impious factions of the wicked? Wherefore, the Apostle shortly after adds,
that the ministry was instituted 'for the edifying of the body of Christ: till
we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God:
that we be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every
wind of doctrine, but speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all
things, who is the Head, even Christ' (Eph. 4:12-15). Could he more plainly
comprise the whole unity of the Church in a holy agreement in true doctrine,
than when he calls us back to Christ and to faith, which is included in the
knowledge of him, and to obedience to the truth? Nor is any lengthened demonstration of this needed by those who
believe the Church to be that sheepfold of which Christ alone is the Shepherd,
and where his voice only is heard, and distinguished from the voice of
strangers. And this is confirmed by Paul, when he prays for the Romans, 'The
God of patience and consolation grant you to be of the same mind one with
another, according to Christ Jesus; that, ye may with one accord and one mouth
glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ' (Rom. 15:5, 6).

"Let our opponents, then,
in the first instance, draw near to Christ, and then let them convict us of
schism, in daring to dissent from them in doctrine. But, since I have made it
plain that Christ is banished from their society, and the doctrine of his
gospel exterminated, their charge against us simply amounts to this, that we
adhere to Christ in preference to them. For what man, pray, will believe that
those who refuse to be led away from Christ and his truth, in order to deliver
themselves into the power of men, are thereby schismatics, and deserters from
the communion of the Church?

"I certainly admit that
respect is to be shown to priests, and that there is great danger in despising
ordinary authority. If, then, they were to say, that we are not at our own hand
to resist ordinary authority, we should have no difficulty in subscribing to
the sentiment. For we are not so rude as not to see what confusion must arise
when the authority of rulers is not respected. Let pastors, then, have their
due honor—an honor, however, not derogatory in any degree to the supreme
authority of Christ, to whom it behooves them and every man to be subject. For
God declares, by Malachi, that the government of the Israelitish Church was
committed to the priests, under the condition that they should faithfully
fulfil the covenant made with them, viz. that 'their lips should keep
knowledge,' and expound the law to the people (Mal. 2:7). When the priests
altogether failed in this condition, he declares, that, by their perfidy, the
covenant was abrogated and made null. Pastors are mistaken if they imagine that
they are invested with the government of the Church on any other terms than
that of being ministers and witnesses of the truth of God. As long, therefore,
as, in opposition to the law and to the nature of their office, they eagerly
wage war with the truth of God, let them not arrogate to themselves a power
which God never bestowed, either formerly on priests, or now on bishops, on any
other terms than those which have been mentioned."

When the Romanists demanded
miracles from the Reformers as a test of their innovations, Calvin replied that
this was "unreasonable; for we forgo no new gospel, but retain the very
same, whose truth was confirmed by all the miracles ever wrought by Christ and
the Apostles. The opponents have this advantage over us, that they confirm
their faith by continual miracles even to this day. But they allege miracles
which are calculated to unsettle a mind otherwise well established; for they
are frivolous and ridiculous, or vain and false. Nor, if they were ever so
preternatural, ought they to have any weight in opposition to the truth of God,
since the name of God ought to be sanctified in all places and at all times,
whether by miraculous events or by the common order of nature."655

Luther had the same Catholic
Church feeling, and gave strong expression to it in his writings against the
radicals, and in a letter to the Margrave of Brandenburg and Duke of Prussia
(1532), in which he says: "It is dangerous and terrible to hear or believe
anything against the unanimous testimony of the entire holy Christian Church as
held from the beginning for now over fifteen hundred years in all the
world."656 And yet
he asserted the right of conscience and private judgment at Worms against popes
and Councils, because he deemed it "unsafe and dangerous to do anything
against the conscience bound in the Word of God."

§ 100. The Visible and Invisible Church.

Comp. vol. VI. § 85, and the
literature there quoted.

A distinction between real and
nominal Christianity is as old as the Church, and has never been denied.
"Many are called, but few are chosen." We can know all that are actually called, but God only knows
those who are truly chosen. The kindred parables of the tares and of the net
illustrate the fact that the kingdom of heaven in this world includes good and
bad men, and that a final separation will not take place before the judgment
day.657 Paul
distinguishes between an outward circumcision of the flesh and an inward
circumcision of the heart; between a carnal Israel and a spiritual Israel; and
he speaks of Gentiles who are ignorant of the written law, yet, do by nature
the things of the law," and will judge those who," with the letter
and circumcision, are transgressors of the law." He thereby intimates that God's mercy is not bounded by the
limits of the visible Church.658

Augustin makes a distinction
between the true body of Christ, which consists of the elect children of God
from the beginning, and the mixed body of Christ, which comprehends all the
baptized.659 In the
Middle Ages the Church was identified with the dominion of the papacy, and the
Cyprianic maxim, "Extra ecclesiam nulla salus," was narrowed into "Extra ecclesiam Romanam nulla
salus," to
the exclusion not only of heretical sects, but also of the Oriental Church.
Wiclif and Hus, in opposition to the corruptions of the papal Church, renewed
the distinction of Augustin, under a different and less happy designation of
the congregation of the predestinated or the elect, and the congregation of
those who are only foreknown.660

The Reformers introduced the
terminology "visible" and invisible" Church. By this they did
not mean two distinct and separate Churches, but rather two classes of
Christians within the same outward communion. The invisible Church is in the
visible Church, as the soul is in the body, or the kernel in the shell, but God
only knows with certainty who belong to the invisible Church and will ultimately
be saved; and in this sense his true children are invisible, that is, not
certainly recognizable and known to men. We may object to the terminology, but
the distinction is real and important.

Luther, who openly adopted the
view of Hus at the disputation of Leipzig, first applied the term
"invisible" to the true Church, which is meant in the Apostles'
Creed.661 The
Augsburg Confession defines the Church to be "the congregation of saints
(or believers), in which the Gospel is purely taught, and the sacraments are
rightly administered." This
definition is too narrow for the invisible Church, and would exclude the
Baptists and Quakers.662

The Reformed system of doctrine
extends the domain of the invisible or true Church and the possibility of
salvation beyond the boundaries of the visible Church, and holds that the
Spirit of God is not bound to the ordinary means of grace, but may work and
save "when, where, and how he pleases."663 Zwingli first introduced both terms. He meant by the
"visible" Church the community of all who bear the Christian name, by
the "invisible" Church the totality of true believers of all ages.664 And he included in the invisible Church all the pious heathen, and
all infants dying in infancy, whether baptized or not. In this liberal view,
however, he stood almost alone in his age and anticipated modern opinions.665

Calvin defines the distinction
more clearly and fully than any of the Reformers, and his view passed into the
Second Helvetic, the Scotch, the Westminster, and other Reformed Confessions.

"The Church," he says,666"is used in the sacred
Scriptures in two senses. Sometimes when they mention 'the Church' they intend
that which is really such in the sight of God (quae revera est coram Deo), into which none are received
but those who by adoption and grace are the children of God, and by the
sanctification of the Spirit are the true members of Christ. And then it
comprehends not only the saints at any one time resident on earth, but all the
elect who have lived from the beginning of the world.

"But the word 'Church' is
frequently used in the Scriptures to designate the whole multitude dispersed
all over the world, who profess to worship one God and Jesus Christ, who are
initiated into his faith by baptism, who testify their unity in true doctrine
and charity by a participation of the sacred supper, who consent to the word of
the Lord, and preserve the ministry which Christ has instituted for the purpose
of preaching it. In this Church are included many hypocrites, who have nothing
of Christ but the name and appearance; many persons, ambitious, avaricious,
envious, slanderous, and dissolute in their lives, who are tolerated for a
time, either because they cannot be convicted by a legitimate process, or
because discipline is not always maintained with sufficient vigor.

"As it is necessary
therefore to believe that Church which is invisible to us, and known to God
alone, so this Church, which is visible to men, we are commanded to honor, and
to maintain communion with it."

Calvin does not go as far as
Zwingli in extending the number of the elect, but there is nothing in his
principles to forbid such extension. He makes salvation dependent upon God's
sovereign grace, and not upon the visible means of grace. He expressly includes
in the invisible Church "all the elect who have lived from the beginning
of the world," and even those who had no historical knowledge of Christ.
He says, in agreement with Augustin:, According to the secret predestination of
God, there are many sheep without the pale of the Church, and many wolves
within it. For God knows and seals those who know not either him or themselves.
Of those who externally bear his seal, his eyes alone can discern who are
unfeignedly holy, and will persevere to the end, which is the completion of
salvation." But in the judgment of
charity, he continues, we must acknowledge as members of the Church "all
those who, by a confession of faith, an exemplary life, and a participation in
the sacraments, profess the same God and Christ with ourselves."667

Calvin discusses the nature and
function of Civil Government at length, and with the ability and wisdom of a
statesman, in the last chapter of his Institutes.

He holds that the Church is
consistent with all forms of government and social conditions, even with civil
servitude (1 Cor. 7:21). But some kind of government is as necessary to mankind
in this world as bread and water, light and air; and it is far more excellent,
since it protects life and property, maintains law and order, and enables men
to live peaceably together, and to pursue their several avocations.

As to the different forms of
government, Calvin discusses the merits of monarchy, aristocracy, and
democracy. All are compatible with Christianity and command our obedience. All
have their advantages and dangers. Monarchy easily degenerates into despotism, aristocracy
into oligarchy or the faction of a few, democracy into mobocracy and sedition.
He gives the preference to a mixture of aristocracy and democracy. He infused a
more aristocratic spirit into the democratic Republic of Geneva, and saw a
precedent in the government of Moses with seventy elders elected from the
wisest and best of the people. It is safer, he thinks, for the government to be
in the hands of many than of one, for they may afford each other assistance,
and restrain arrogance and ambition.

Civil government is of divine
origin. "All power is ordained of God" (Rom. 13:1). "By me kings
reign, and princes decree justice" (Prov. 8:15). The magistrates are
called "gods "(Ps. 82:1, 6; a passage indorsed by Christ, John
10:35), because they are invested with God's authority and act as his
vicegerents. "Civil magistracy is not only holy and legitimate, but far
the most sacred and honorable in human life." Submission to lawful government is the duty of every citizen. To
resist it, is to set at naught the ordinance of God (Rom. 13:3, 4; comp. Tit.
3:1; 1 Pet. 2:13, 14). Paul admonishes Timothy that in the public congregation
"supplication, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings be made for kings and
for all that are in high places; that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in
all godliness and gravity" (1 Tim. 2:1, 2). We must obey and pray even for
bad rulers, and endure in patience and humility till God exercises his
judgment. The punishment of evildoers belongs only to God and to the magistrates.
Sometimes God punishes the people by wicked rulers, and punishes these by other
bad rulers. We, as individuals, must suffer rather than rebel. Only in one case
are we required to disobey,—when the civil ruler commands us to do anything
against the will of God and against our conscience. Then, we must obey God
rather than men" (Acts 5:29).668

Calvin was thus a strong
upholder of authority in the State. He did not advise or encourage the active
resistance of the Huguenots at the beginning of the civil wars in France,
although he gave a tacit consent.

Calvin extended the authority
and duty of civil government to both Tables of the Law. He assigns to it, in
Christian society, the office,—"to cherish and support the external
worship of God, to preserve the true doctrine of religion, to defend the
constitution of the Church, and to regulate our lives in a manner requisite for
the social welfare." He proves
this view from the Old Testament, and quotes the passage in Isaiah 49:23, that
"kings shall be nursing-fathers and queens nursing-mothers" to the
Church. He refers to the examples of Moses, Joshua and the Judges, David,
Josiah, and Hezekiah.

Here is the critical point where
religious persecution by the State comes in as an inevitable consequence.
Offences against the Church are offences against the State, and vice versa,
and deserve punishment by fines, imprisonment, exile, and, if necessary, by
death. On this ground the execution of Servetus and other heretics was
justified by all who held the same theory; fortunately, it has no support
whatever in the New Testament, but is directly contrary to the spirit of the
gospel.

Geneva, after the emancipation
from the power of the bishop and the duke of Savoy, was a self-governing
Republic under the protection of Bern and the Swiss Confederacy. The civil
government assumed the episcopal power, and exercised it first in favor, then
against, and at last permanently for the Reformation.

The Republic was composed of all
citizens of age, who met annually in general assembly (conseil
général),
usually in St. Peter's, under the sounding of bells, and trumpets, for the
ratification of laws and the election of officers. The administrative power was
lodged in four Syndics; the legislative power in two Councils, the Council of
Sixty, and the Council of Two Hundred. The former existed since 1457; the
latter was instituted in 1526, after the alliance with Freiburg and Bern, in
imitation of the Constitution of these and other Swiss cities. The Sixty were
by right members of the Council of Two Hundred. In 1530 the Two Hundred assumed
the right to elect the ordinary or little Council of Twenty-Five, who were a
part of the two other Councils and had previously been elected by the Syndics.
The real power lay in the hands of the Syndics and the little Council of
Twenty-five, which formed an oligarchy with legislative, executive, and
judicial functions.

Calvin did not change these
fundamental institutions of the Republic, but he infused into them a Christian
and disciplinary spirit, and improved the legislation. He was appointed,
together with the Syndics Roset, Porral, and Balard, to draw up a new code of
laws, as early as Nov. 1, 1541.669 He devoted much time to this work, and paid attention even to the
minutest details concerning the administration of justice, the city police, the
military, the firemen, the watchmen on the tower, and the like.670

The city showed her gratitude by
presenting him with "a cask of old wine" for these extra services.671

Many of his regulations
continued in legal force down to the eighteenth century.

Calvin was consulted in all
important affairs of the State, and his advice was usually followed; but he
never occupied a political or civil office. He was not even a citizen of Geneva
till 1559 (eighteen years after his second arrival), and never appeared before
the Councils except when some ecclesiastical question was debated, or when his
advice was asked. It is a mistake, therefore, to call him the head of the
Republic, except in a purely intellectual and moral sense.

The code of laws was revised
with the aid of Calvin by his friend, Germain Colladon (1510-1594), an eminent
juris-consult and member of a distinguished family of French refugees who
settled at Geneva. The revised code was begun in 1560, and published in 1568.672

Among the laws of Geneva we
mention a press law, the oldest in Switzerland, dated Feb. 15, 1560. Laws
against the freedom of the press existed before, especially in Spain. Alexander
VI., a Spaniard, issued a bull in 1501, instructing the German prelates to
exercise a close supervision over printers. Ferdinand and Isabella the Catholic
established a censorship which prohibited, under severe penalties, the
printing, importation, and sale of any book that had not previously passed an
examination and obtained a license. Rome adopted the same policy. Other
countries, Protestant as well as Roman Catholic, followed the example. In
Russia, the severest restrictions of the press are still in force.

The press law of Geneva was
comparatively moderate. It put the press under the supervision of three prudent
and experienced men, to be appointed by the government. These men have
authority to appoint able and trustworthy printers, to examine every book
before it is printed, to prevent popish, heretical, and infidel publications,
to protect the publisher against piracy; but Bibles, catechisms, prayers, and
psalms may be printed by all publishers; new translations of the Scriptures are
privileged in the first edition.673

The censorship of the press
continued in Geneva till the eighteenth century. In 1600 the Council forbade
the printing of the essays of Montaigne; in 1763 Rousseau's Emile was
condemned to be burned.

It should be noted, however,
that under the influence of Calvin Geneva became one of the most important
places of publication. The famous Robert Stephen (Etienne, 1503-1559), being
censured by the Sorbonne of Paris, settled in Geneva after the death of his
father, Henri, as a professed Protestant, and printed there two editions of the
Hebrew Bible, and an edition of the Greek Testament, with the Vulgate and
Erasmian versions, in 1551, which for the first time contains the versicular
division of the text according to our present usage. To him we owe the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae (third ed. 1543, in 4 vols.),
and to his son, Henri, the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (1572, 4 vols.). Beza published several editions of his
Greek Testament in Geneva (1565-1598), which were chiefly used by King James'
translators. In the same city appeared the English version of the New Testament
by Whittingham, 1557; then of the whole Bible, 1560. This is the so-called
"Geneva Bible," or "Breeches Bible" (from the rendering of
Gen. 3:7), which was for a long time the most popular English version, and
passed through about two hundred editions from 1560 to 1630.674 Geneva has well maintained its literary reputation to this day.

§ 102. Distinctive Principles of Calvin's Church Polity.

Calvin was a legislator and the
founder of a new system of church polity and discipline. He had a legal
training, which was of much use to him in organizing the Reformed Church at
Geneva. If he had lived in the Middle Ages, he might have been a Hildebrand or
an Innocent III. But the spirit of the Reformation required a reconstruction of
church government on an evangelical and popular basis.

Calvin laid great stress on the
outward organization and order of the Church, but in subordination to sound
doctrine and the inner spiritual life. He compares the former to the body,
while the doctrine which regulates the worship of God, and points out the way
of salvation, is the soul which animates the body and renders it lively and
active.675

The Calvinistic system of church
polity is based upon the following principles, which have exerted great
influence in the development of Protestantism: —

1. The autonomy of the Church,
or its right of self-government under the sole headship of Christ.

The Roman Catholic Church
likewise claims autonomy, but in a hierarchical sense, and under the supreme
control of the pope, who, as the visible vicar of Christ, demands passive
obedience from priests and people. Calvin vests the self-government in the
Christian congregation, and regards all the ministers of the gospel, in their
official character, as ambassadors and representatives of Christ. "Christ
alone," he says, "ought to rule and reign in the Church, and to have
all preeminence in it, and this government ought to be exercised and
administered solely by his word; yet as he dwells not among us by a visible presence,
so as to make an audible declaration of his will to us, he uses for this
purpose the ministry of men whom he employs as his delegates, not to transfer
his right and honor to them, but only that he may himself do his work by their
lips; just as an artificer makes use of an instrument in the performance of his
work."676

In practice, however, the
autonomy both of the Roman Catholic hierarchy and of the Protestant Churches is
more or less curtailed and checked by the civil government wherever Church and
State are united, and where the State supports the Church. For self-government
requires self-support. Calvin intended to institute synods, and to make the
clergy independent of State patronage, but in this he did not succeed.

The Lutheran Reformers subjected
the Church to the secular rulers, and made her an obedient handmaid of the
State; but they complained bitterly of the selfish and arbitrary misgovernment
of the princes. The congregations in most Lutheran countries of Europe have no
voice in the election of their own pastors. The Reformers of German Switzerland
conceded more power to the people in a democratic republic, and introduced
synods, but they likewise put the supreme power into the hands of the civil
government of the several cantons. In monarchical England the governorship of
the Church was usurped and exercised by Henry VIII. and, in a milder form, by
Queen Elizabeth and her successors, and acquiesced in by the bishops. The
churches under Calvin's influence always maintained, at least in theory, the
independence of the Church in all spiritual affairs, and the right of
individual congregations in the election of their own pastors. Calvin derives
this right from the Greek verb used in the passage which says that Paul and
Barnabas ordained presbyters by the suffrages or votes of the people.677 "Those two apostles," he says, "ordained the
presbyters; but the whole multitude, according to the custom observed among the
Greeks, declared by the elevation of their hands who was the object of their
choice ... . It is not credible that Paul granted to Timothy and Titus more power
(1 Tim. 5:22 Tit. 1:5) than he assumed to himself." After quoting with approval two passages
from Cyprian, he concludes that the apostolic and best mode of electing pastors
is by the consent of the whole people; yet other pastors ought to preside over
the election, "to guard the multitude from falling into improprieties
through inconstancy, intrigue, and confusion."678

The Presbyterian Church of
Scotland has labored and suffered more than any Protestant Church for the principle
of the sole headship of Christ; first against popery, then against prelacy, and
last against patronage. In North America this principle is almost universally
acknowledged.

2. The parity of the clergy as
distinct from a
jure divino hierarchy
whether papal or prelatical.

Calvin maintained, with Jerome,
the original identity of bishops (overseers) and presbyters (elders); and in
this he has the support of the best modern exegetes and historians.679

But he did not on this account
reject all distinctions among ministers, which rest on human right and
historical development, nor deny the right of adapting the Church order to
varying conditions and circumstances. He was not an exclusive or bigoted
Presbyterian. He had no objection to episcopacy in large countries, like Poland
and England, provided the evangelical doctrines be preached.680 In his correspondence with Archbishop Cranmer and Protector Somerset,
he suggests various improvements, but does not oppose episcopacy. In a long
letter to King Sigismund Augustus of Poland, he even approves of it in that
kingdom.681

But Presbyterianism and
Congregationalism are more congenial to the spirit of Calvinism than prelacy.
In the conflict with Anglican prelacy during the seventeenth century, the
Calvinistic Churches became exclusively Presbyterian in Scotland, or
Independent in England and New England. During the same period, in opposition
to the enforced introduction of the Anglican liturgy, the Presbyterians and
Congregationalists abandoned liturgical worship; while Calvin and the Reformed
Churches on the Continent approved of forms of devotion in connection with free
prayer in public worship.

3. The participation of the
Christian laity in Church government and discipline. This is a very important
feature.

In the Roman Church the laity
are passive, and have no share whatever in legislation. Theirs is simply to
obey the priesthood. Luther first effectively proclaimed the doctrine of the
general priesthood of the laity, but Calvin put it into an organized form, and
made the laity a regular agency in the local congregation, and in the synods
and Councils of the Church. His views are gaining ground in other
denominations, and are almost generally adopted in the United States. Even the
Protestant Episcopal Church gives, in the lower house of her diocesan and
general conventions, to the laity an equal representation with the clergy.

4. Strict discipline to be
exercised jointly by ministers and lay-elders, with the consent of the whole
congregation.

In this point Calvin went far
beyond the older Reformers, and achieved greater success, as we shall see
hereafter.

5. Union of Church and State on
a theocratic basis, if possible, or separation, if necessary to secure the
purity and self-government of the Church. This requires fuller exposition.

§ 103. Church and State.

Calvin's Church polity is
usually styled a theocracy, by friends in praise, by foes in censure.682 This is true, but in a qualified sense. He aimed at the sole rule
of Christ and his Word both in Church and State, but without mixture and
interference. The two powers were almost equally balanced in Geneva. The early
Puritan colonies in New England were an imitation of the Geneva model.

In theory, Calvin made a clearer
distinction between the spiritual and secular powers than was usual in his age,
when both were inextricably interwoven and confused. He compares the Church to
the soul, the State to the body. The one has to do with the spiritual and
eternal welfare of man, the other with the affairs of this present, transitory
life.683 Each is
independent and sovereign in its own sphere. He was opposed to any interference
of the civil government with the internal affairs and discipline of the Church.
He was displeased with the servile condition of the clergy in Germany and in
Bern, and often complained (even on his death-bed) of the interference of Bern
with the Church in Geneva. But he was equally opposed to a clerical control of
civil and political affairs, and confined the Church to the spiritual sword. He
never held a civil office. The ministers were not eligible to the magistracy
and the Councils.

Yet he did not go so far as to
separate the two powers; on the contrary, he united them as closely as their
different functions would admit. His fundamental idea was, that God alone is
Lord on earth as well as in heaven, and should rule supreme in Church and State.
In this sense he was theocratic or christocratic. God uses Church and State as
two distinct but co-operative arms for the upbuilding of Christ's kingdom. The
law for both is the revealed will of God in the Holy Scriptures. The Church
gives moral support to the State, while the State gives temporal support to the
Church.

Calvin's ideal of Christian
society resembles that of Hildebrand, but differs from it on the following
important points:

1. Calvin's theory professed to
be based upon the Scriptures, as the only rule of faith and practice; the papal
theocracy drew its support chiefly from tradition and the Canon law.

Calvin's arguments, however, are
exclusively taken from the Old Testament. The Calvinistic as well as the papal
theocracy is Mosaic and legalistic rather than Christian and evangelical. The
Apostolic Church had no connection whatever with the State except to obey its
legitimate demands. Christ's rule is expressed in that wisest word ever uttered
on this subject: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and
unto God the things that are God's" (Matt. 22:21).

2. Calvin recognized only the
invisible headship of Christ, and rejected the papal claim to world-dominion as
an anti-christian usurpation.

3. He had a much higher view of
the State than the popes. He considered it equally divine in origin and
authority as the Church, and fully independent in all temporal matters; while
the papal hierarchy in the Middle Ages often overruled the State by
ecclesiastical authority. Hildebrand compared the Church to the sun, the State
to the moon which borrows her light from the sun, and claimed and exercised the
right of deposing kings and absolving subjects from their oaths of allegiance.
Boniface VIII. formulated this claim in the well-known theory of the two
swords.

4. Calvin's theocracy was based
upon the sovereignty of the Christian people and the general priesthood of
believers; the papal theocracy was an exclusive rule of the priesthood.

In practice, the two powers were
not as clearly distinct at Geneva as in theory. They often intermeddled with
each other. The ministers criticised the acts of the magistrates from the
pulpit; and the magistrates called the ministers to account for their sermons.
Discipline was a common territory for both, and the Consistory was a mixed body
of clergymen and laymen. The government fixed and paid the salaries of the
pastors, and approved their nomination and transfer from one parish to another.
None could even absent himself for a length of time without leave by the Council.
The Large Council voted on the Confession of Faith and Discipline, and gave
them the power of law.

The Reformed Church of Geneva,
in one word, was an established Church or State Church, and continues so to
this day, though no more in an exclusive sense, but with liberty to Dissenters,
whether Catholic or Protestant, who have of late been increasing by
immigration.

The union of Church and State is
tacitly assumed or directly asserted in nearly all the Protestant Confessions
of Faith, which make it the duty of the civil government to support religion,
to protect orthodoxy, and to punish heresy.684

In modern times the character of
the State and its attitude towards the Church has undergone a material change
in Switzerland as well as in other countries. The State is no longer identified
with a particular Church, and has become either indifferent, or hostile, or
tolerant. It is composed of members of all creeds, and should, in the name of
justice, support all, or none; in either case allowing to all full liberty as
far as is consistent with the public peace.

Under these circumstances the
Church has to choose between liberty with self-support, and dependence with
government support. If Calvin lived at this day, he would undoubtedly prefer
the former. Calvinists and Presbyterians have taken the lead in the struggle
for Church independence against the Erastian and rationalistic encroachments of
the civil power. Free Churches have been organized in French Switzerland
(Geneva, Vaud, Neuchàtel), in France, Holland, and especially in Presbyterian
Scotland. The heroic sacrifices of the Free Church of Scotland in seceding from
the Established Church, and making full provision for all her wants by
voluntary contributions, form one of the brightest chapters in the history of
Protestantism. The Dissenters in England have always maintained and exercised
the voluntary principle since their legal recognition by the Toleration Act of
1689. In the British Provinces and in North America, all denominations are on a
basis of equality before the law, and enjoy, under the protection of the
government, full liberty of self-government with the corresponding duty of
self-support. The condition of modern society demands a peaceful separation of
Church and State, or a Free Church in a Free State.

§ 104. The Ecclesiastical Ordinances.

Comp. § 83 (352 sqq.) and § 86
(367 sqq.). Calvin discusses the ministerial office in the third chapter of the
fourth book of his Institutes.

Having considered Calvin's
general principles on Church government, we proceed to their introduction and
application in the little Republic of Geneva.

We have seen that in his first
interview with the Syndics and Council after his return, Sept. 13, 1541, he
insisted on the introduction of an ecclesiastical constitution and discipline
in accordance with the Word of God and the primitive Church.685 The Council complied with his wishes, and intrusted the work to
the five pastors (Calvin, Viret, Jacques Bernard, Henry de la Mare, and Aymé
Champereau) and six councillors (decided Guillermins), to whom was added Jean
Balard as advisory member. The document was prepared under his directing
influence, submitted to the Councils, slightly altered, and solemnly ratified
by a general assembly of citizens (the Conseil général), Jan. 2, 1542, as the
fundamental church law of the Republic of Geneva.686 Its essential features have passed into the constitution and
discipline of most of the Reformed and Presbyterian Churches of Europe and
America.

The official text of the
"Ordinances "is preserved in the Registers of the Venerable Company,
and opens with the following introduction: —

"In the name of God
Almighty, we, the Syndics, Small and Great Councils with our people assembled
at the sound of the trumpet and the great clock, according to our ancient
customs, have considered that the matter above all others worthy of
recommendation is to preserve the doctrine of the holy gospel of our Lord in
its purity, to protect the Christian Church, to instruct faithfully the youth,
and to provide a hospital for the proper support of the poor,—all of which
cannot be done without a definite order and rule of life, from which every
estate may learn the duty of its office. For this reason we have deemed it wise
to reduce the spiritual government, such as our Lord has shown us and
instituted by his Word, to a good form to be introduced and observed among us.
Therefore we have ordered and established to follow and to guard in our city
and territory the following ecclesiastical polity, taken from the gospel of
Jesus Christ."687

The document is inspired by a
high view of the dignity and responsibility of the ministry of the gospel, such
as we find in the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians and Ephesians. "It
may be confidently asserted," says a Catholic historian,688"that in no religious
society of Christian Europe the clergy was assigned a position so dignified,
prominent, and influential as in the Church which Calvin built up in
Geneva."

In his Institutes Calvin
distinguishes three extraordinary officers of the Church,—Apostles,
Prophets, and Evangelists,—and four ordinary officers—Pastors (Bishops),
Teachers, Ancients (Lay-elders), and Deacons.689

Extraordinary officers were
raised up by the Lord at the beginning of his kingdom, and are raised up on
special occasions when required "by the necessity of the times." The Reformers must be regarded as a
secondary class of Apostles, Prophets, and Evangelists. Calvin himself
intimates the parallel when he says:690"I do not deny that ever
since that period [of the Apostles] God has sometimes raised up Apostles or
Evangelists in their stead, as he has done in our own time. For there was a
necessity for such persons to recover the Church from the defection of
Antichrist. Nevertheless, I call this an extraordinary office, because it has
no place in well-constituted Churches."691

The extraordinary offices cannot
be regulated by law. The Ordinances, therefore, give directions only for the
ordinary offices of the Church.

1. The Pastors,692or ministers of the gospel, as Calvin likes to call
them, have "to preach the Word of God, to instruct, to admonish, to exhort
and reprove in public and private, to administer the sacraments, and, jointly
with the elders, to exercise discipline."693

No one can be a pastor who is
not called, examined, ordained, or installed. In the examination, the candidate
must give satisfactory evidence of his knowledge of the Scriptures, his
soundness in doctrine, purity of motives, and integrity of character. If he
proves worthy of the office, he receives a testimony to that effect from the
Council to be presented to the congregation. If he fails in the examination, he
must wait for another call and submit to another examination. The best mode of
installation is by prayer and laying on of hands, according to the practice of
the Apostles and the early Church; but it should be done without superstition.

All the ministers are to hold
weekly conferences for mutual instruction, edification, correction, and
encouragement in their official duties. No one should absent himself without a
good excuse. This duty devolves also on the pastors of the country districts.
If doctrinal controversies arise, the ministers settle them by discussion; and
if they cannot agree, the matter is referred to the magistracy.

Discipline is to be strictly
exercised over the ministers, and a number of sins and vices are specified
which cannot be tolerated among them, such as heresy, schism, rebellion against
ecclesiastical order, blasphemy, impurity, falsehood, perjury, usury, avarice,
dancing, negligence in the study of the Scriptures.

The Ordinances prescribe for
Sunday a service in the morning, catechism—that is, instruction of little
children—at noon, a second sermon in the afternoon at three o'clock. Three sermons
are to be preached during the week—Monday, Tuesday, and Friday. For these
services are required, in the city, five regular ministers and three assistant
ministers.

In the Institutes, Calvin
describes the office of Pastors to be the same as that of the Apostles, except
in the extent of their field and authority. They are all ambassadors of Christ
and stewards of the mysteries of God (1 Cor. 4:1). What Paul says of himself
applies to them all: "Woe is to me, if I preach not the gospel" (1 Cor.
9:16).

2. The office of the Teachers694is to instruct the believers in
sound doctrine, in order that the purity of the gospel be not corrupted by
ignorance or false opinions.

Calvin derived the distinction
between Teachers and Pastors from Eph. 4:11, and states the difference to
consist in this, "that Teachers have no official concern with discipline,
nor the administration of the sacraments, nor admonitions and exhortations, but
only with the interpretation of the Scripture; whereas the pastoral office
includes all these duties."695 He also says that the Teachers sustain the same resemblance to the
ancient Prophets as the Pastors to the Apostles. He himself had the prophetic
gift of luminous and convincing teaching in a rare degree. Theological
Professors occupy the highest rank among Teachers.

3. The Ancients or Lay-Elders watch over the good conduct of the people.
They must be God-fearing and wise men, without and above suspicion. Twelve were
to be selected—two from the Little Council, four from the Council of the Sixty,
and six from the Council of the Two Hundred. Each was to be assigned a special
district of the city.

This is a very important office
in the Presbyterian Churches. In the Institutes, Calvin. quotes in
support of it the gifts of government.696 "From the beginning," he says,697"every Church has had its
senate or council, composed of pious, grave, and holy men, who were invested
with that jurisdiction in the correction of vices ... . This office of government
is necessary in every age." He
makes a distinction between two classes of Elders,—Ruling Elders and Teaching
Elders,—on the basis of 1 Tim. 5:17:, Let the elders that rule well be counted
worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and in
teaching."698 The
exegetical foundation for such a distinction is weak, but the ruling
Lay-Eldership has proved a very useful institution and great help to the
teaching ministry.

4. The Deacons have the care of the poor and the sick, and of the
hospitals. They must prevent mendicancy which is contrary to good order.699 Two classes of Deacons are distinguished, those who administer
alms, and those who devote themselves to the poor and sick.700

5. Baptism is to be performed in
the Church, and only by ministers and their assistants. The names of the
children and their parents must be entered in the Church registers.

6. The Lord's Supper is to be
administered every month in one of the Churches, and at Easter, Pentecost, and
Christmas. The elements must be distributed reverently by the ministers and
deacons. None is to be admitted before having been instructed in the catechism
and made a profession of his faith.

The remainder of the Ordinances
contains regulations about marriage, burial, the visitation of the sick, and
prisons.

The Ministers and Ancients are
to meet once a week on Thursday, to discuss together the state of the Church
and to exercise discipline. The object of discipline is to bring the sinner
back to the Lord.701

The Ecclesiastical Ordinances
of 1541 were revised and enlarged by Calvin, and adopted by the Little and
Large Councils, Nov. 13, 1561. This edition contains also the oaths of
allegiance of the Ministers, Pastors, Doctors, Elders, Deacons, and the members
of the Consistory, and fuller directions concerning the administration of the
sacraments, marriage, the visitation of the sick and prisoners, the election of
members of the Consistory, and excommunication.702

A new revision of the Ordinances
was made and adopted by the General Council, June 3, 1576.

§ 105. The Venerable Company and the Consistory.

The Church of Geneva consisted
of all baptized and professing Christians subject to discipline. It had, at the
time of Calvin, a uniform creed; Romanists and sectarians being excluded. It
was represented and governed by the Venerable Company and the Consistory.

1. The Venerable Company was a purely clerical body, consisting of
all the pastors of the city and district of Geneva. It had no political power.
It was intrusted with the general supervision of all strictly ecclesiastical
affairs, especially the education, qualification, ordination, and installation
of the ministers of the gospel. But the consent of the civil government and the
congregation was necessary for the final induction to the ministry. Thus the
pastors and the people were to co-operate.

2. The Consistory or Presbytery
was a mixed body of clergymen and laymen, and larger and more
influential than the Venerable Company. It represented the union of Church and
State. It embraced, at the time of Calvin, five city Pastors and twelve Seniors
or Lay-Elders, two of whom were selected from the Council of Sixty and ten from
the Council of Two Hundred. The laymen, therefore, had the majority; but the
clerical element was comparatively fixed, while the Elders were elected annually
under the influence of the clergy. A Syndic was the constitutional head.703 Calvin never presided in form, but ruled the proceedings in fact
by his superior intelligence and weighty judgment.704

The Consistory went into
operation immediately after the adoption of the Ordinances, and met
every Thursday. The reports begin from the tenth meeting, which was held on
Thursday, Feb. 16, 1542.705

The duty of the Consistory was
the maintenance and exercise of discipline. Every house was to be visited
annually by a Minister and Elder. To facilitate the working of this system the
city was divided into three parishes—St. Peter's, the Magdalen, and St.
Gervais. Calvin officiated in St. Peter's.

The Consistorial Court was the
controlling power in the Church of Geneva. It has often been misrepresented as
a sort of tribunal of Inquisition or Star Chamber. But it could only use the
spiritual sword, and had nothing to do with civil and temporal punishments,
which belonged exclusively to the Council. The names of Gruet, Bolsec, and
Servetus do not even appear in its records.706 Calvin wrote to the ministers of Zürich, Nov. 26, 1553: "The
Consistory has no civil jurisdiction, but only the right to reprove according
to the Word of God, and its severest punishment is excommunication."707 He wisely provided for the preponderance of the lay-element.

At first the Council, following
the example of Basel and Bern, denied to the Consistory the right of
excommunication.708 The
persons excluded from the Lord's Table usually appealed to the Council, which
often interceded in their behalf or directed them to make an apology to the
Consistory. There was also a difference of opinion as regards the consequences
of excommunication. The Consistory demanded that persons cut off from the
Church for grievous offenses and scandalous lives should be banished from the
State for a year, or until they repent; but the Council did not agree. Calvin
could not always carry out his views, and acted on the principle to tolerate
what he could not abolish.709 It was
only after his final victory over the Libertines in 1555 that the Council
conceded to the Consistory the undisputed power of excommunication.710

From these facts we may judge
with what right Calvin has so often been called "the Pope of Geneva,"
mostly by way of reproach.711 As far as
the designation is true, it is an involuntary tribute to his genius and
character. For he had no material support, and he never used his influence for
gain or personal ends. The Genevese knew him well and obeyed him freely.

§ 106. Calvin's Theory of Discipline.

Discipline is so important an
element in Calvin's Church polity, that it must be more fully considered.
Discipline was the cause of his expulsion from Geneva, the basis of his
flourishing French congregation at Strassburg, the chief reason for his recall,
the condition of his acceptance, the struggle and triumph of his life, and the
secret of his moral influence to this day. His rigorous discipline, based on
his rigorous creed, educated the heroic French, Dutch, English, Scotch, and
American Puritans (using this word in a wider sense for strict Calvinists). It
fortified them for their trials and persecutions, and made them promoters of
civil and religious liberty.

The severity of the system has
passed away, even in Geneva, Scotland, and New England, but the result remains
in the power of self-government, the capacity for organization, the order and
practical efficiency which characterizes the Reformed Churches in Europe and
America.

Calvin's great aim was to
realize the purity and holiness of the Church as far as human weakness will
permit. He kept constantly in view the ideal of "a Church without spot or
wrinkle or blemish," which Paul describes in the Epistle to the Ephesians
5:27. He wanted every Christian to be consistent with his profession, to show
his faith by good works, and to strive to be perfect as our Father in heaven is
perfect. He was the only one among the Reformers who attempted and who
measurably carried out this sublime idea in a whole community.

Luther thought the preaching of
the gospel would bring about all the necessary changes, but he had to complain
bitterly, at the end of his life, of the dissolute manners of the students and
citizens at Wittenberg, and seriously thought of leaving the city in disgust.712

Calvin knew well enough that the
ideal could only be imperfectly realized in this world, but that it was none
the less our duty to strive after perfection. He often quotes Augustin against
the Donatists who dreamed of an imaginary purity of the Church, like the
Anabaptists who, he observes, "acknowledge no congregation to belong to
Christ, unless it be in all respects conspicuous for angelic perfection, and
who, under pretext of zeal, destroy all edification." He consents to Augustin's remark that
"schemes of separation are pernicious and sacrilegious, because they
proceed from pride and impiety, and disturb the good who are weak, more than
they correct the wicked who are bold."
In commenting on the parable of the net which gathered of every kind
(Matt. 13:47), he says: "The Church while on earth is mixed with good and
bad and will never be free of all impurity ... . Although God, who is a God of
order, commands us to exercise discipline, he allows for a time to hypocrites a
place among believers until he shall set up his kingdom in its perfection on
the last day. As far as we are concerned, we must strive to correct vices and
to purge the Church of impurity, although she will not be free from all stain
and blemish till Christ shall separate the goats from the sheep."713

Calvin discusses the subject of
discipline in the twelfth chapter of the fourth book of his Institutes.
His views are sound and scriptural. "No society," he says at the
outset, "no house can be preserved in proper condition without discipline.
The Church ought to be the most orderly society of all. As the saving doctrine
of Christ is the soul of the Church, so discipline forms the nerves and
ligaments which connect the members and keep each in its proper place. It
serves as a bridle to curb and restrain the refractory who resist the doctrine
of Christ; or as a spur to stimulate the inactive; and sometimes as a father's
rod to chastise, in mercy and with the gentleness of the spirit of Christ,
those who have grievously fallen away. It is the only remedy against a dreadful
desolation in the Church."

One of the greatest objections
which he had against the Roman Church of his day was the utter want of
discipline in constant violation of the canons. He asserts, without fear of
contradiction, that "there was scarcely one of the (Roman) bishops, and
not one in a hundred of the parochial clergy, who, if sentence were to be
passed upon his conduct according to the ancient canons, would not be
excommunicated, or, to say the very least, deposed from his office."714

He distinguished between the
discipline of the people and the discipline of the clergy.715

1. The discipline of members has
three degrees: private admonition; a second admonition in the presence of
witnesses or before the Church; and, in case of persistent disobedience,
exclusion from the Lord's Table. This is in accordance with the rule of Christ
(Matt. 18:15-17). The object of discipline is threefold: to protect the body of
the Church against contamination and profanation; to guard the individual
members against the corrupting influence of constant association with the
wicked; and to bring the offender to repentance that he may be saved and
restored to the fellowship of the faithful. Excommunication and subsequent
restoration were exercised by Paul in the case of the Corinthian offender, and by
the Church in her purer days. Even the Emperor Theodosius was excluded from
communion by Bishop Ambrose of Milan on account of the massacre perpetrated in
Thessalonica at his order.716

Excommunication should be
exercised only against flagitious crimes which disgrace the Christian
profession; such as adultery, fornication, theft, robbery, sedition, perjury,
contempt of God and his authority. Nor should it be exercised by the bishop or
pastor alone, but by the body of elders, and, as is pointed out by Paul,
"with the knowledge and approbation of the congregation; in such a manner,
however, that the multitude of the people may not direct the proceeding, but
may watch over it as witnesses and guardians, that nothing be done by a few
persons from any improper motive."
Moreover, "the severity of the Church must be tempered by a spirit
of gentleness. For there is constant need of the greatest caution, according to
the injunction of Paul concerning a person who may have been censured, 'lest by
any means such a one should be swallowed up with his overmuch sorrow' (2 Cor.
2:7); for thus a remedy would become a poison."

When the sinner gives reasonable
evidence of repentance he is to be restored. Calvin objects to "the
excessive austerity of the ancients," who refused to readmit the lapsed.
He approves of the course of Cyprian, who says: "Our patience and kindness
and tenderness is ready for all who come; I wish all to return into the Church;
I wish all our fellow-soldiers to be assembled in the camp of Christ, and all
our brethren to be received into the house of God our Father. I forgive
everything; I conceal much. With ready and sincere affection I embrace those
who return with penitence." Calvin
adds: "Such as are expelled from the Church, it is not for us to expunge
from the number of the elect, or to despair of them as already lost. It is
proper to consider them as strangers to the Church, and consequently to Christ,
but this only as long as they remain in a state of exclusion. And even then let
us hope better things of them for the future, and not cease to pray to God on
their behalf. Let us not condemn to eternal death the offender, nor prescribe
laws to the mercy of God who can change the worst of men into the
best." He makes a distinction
between excommunication and anathema; the former censures and punishes with a
view to reformation and restoration; the latter precludes all pardon, and
devotes a person to eternal perdition. Anathema ought never to be resorted to,
or at least very rarely. Church members ought to exert all means in their power
to promote the reformation of an excommunicated person, and admonish him not as
an enemy, but as a brother (2 Cor. 2:8). "Unless this tenderness be
observed by the individual members as well as by the Church collectively, our
discipline will be in danger of speedily degenerating into cruelty."

2. As regards the discipline of
the clergy, Calvin objects to the exemption of ministers from civil
jurisdiction, and wants them to be subject to the same punishments as laymen.
They are more guilty, as they ought to set a good example. He quotes with
approval the ancient canons, so shamefully neglected in the Roman Church of his
day, against hunting, gambling, feasting, usury, commerce, and secular
amusements. He recommends annual visitations and synods for the correction and
examination of delinquent clergymen.

But he rejects the prohibition
of clerical marriage as an "act of impious tyranny contrary to the Word of
God and to every principle of justice. With what impunity fornication rages
among them [the papal clergy] it is unnecessary to remark; emboldened by their
polluted celibacy, they have become hardened to every crime ... . Paul places
marriage among the virtues of a bishop; these men teach that it is a vice not
to be tolerated in the clergy ... . Christ has been pleased to put such honor
upon marriage as to make it an image of his sacred union with the Church. What
could be said more in commendation of the dignity of marriage? With what face can that be called impure and
polluted, which exhibits a similitude of the spiritual grace of Christ?...
Marriage is honorable in all; but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge
(Heb. 13:4). The Apostles themselves have proved by their own example that
marriage is not unbecoming the sanctity of any office, however excellent: for
Paul testifies that they not only retained their wives, but took them about
with them (1 Cor. 9:5)."

§ 107. The Exercise of Discipline in Geneva.

Calvin succeeded after a fierce
struggle in infusing the Church of Geneva with his views on discipline. The
Consistory and the Council rivalled with each other, under his inspiration, in
puritanic zeal for the correction of immorality; but their zeal sometimes
transgressed the dictates of wisdom and moderation. The union of Church and
State rests on the false assumption that all citizens are members of the Church
and subject to discipline.

Dancing, gambling, drunkenness,
the frequentation of taverns, profanity, luxury, excesses at public
entertainments, extravagance and immodesty in dress, licentious or irreligious
songs were forbidden, and punished by censure or fine or imprisonment. Even the
number of dishes at meals was regulated. Drunkards were fined three sols for
each offence. Habitual gamblers were exposed in the pillory with cords around
their neck. Reading of bad books and immoral novels was also prohibited, and
the popular "Amadis de Gaul "was ordered to be destroyed (1559). A
morality play on "the Acts of the Apostles," after it had been performed
several times, and been attended even by the Council, was forbidden. Parents
were warned against naming their children after Roman Catholic saints who
nourished certain superstitions; instead of them the names of Abraham, Moses,
David, Daniel, Zechariah, Jeremiah, Nehemiah became common. (This preference
for Old Testament names was carried even further by the Puritans of England and
New England.) The death penalty against heresy, idolatry, and blasphemy, and
the barbarous custom of the torture were retained. Adultery, after a second
offence, was likewise punished by death.

These were prohibitive and
protective laws intended to prevent and punish irreligion and immorality.

But the Council introduced also
coercive laws, which are contrary to the nature of religion, and apt to breed
hypocrisy or infidelity. Attendance on public worship was commanded on penalty
of three sols.717 When a
refugee from Lyons once gratefully exclaimed, "How glorious is the liberty
we enjoy here," a woman bitterly replied: "Free indeed we formerly
were to attend mass, but now we are compelled to hear a sermon." Watchmen were appointed to see that people
went to church. The members of the Consistory visited every house once a year
to examine into the faith and morals of the family. Every unseemly word and act
on the street was reported, and the offenders were cited before the Consistory
to be either censured and warned, or to be handed over to the Council for
severer punishment. No respect was paid to person, rank, or sex. The strictest
impartiality was maintained, and members of the oldest and most distinguished
families, ladies as well as gentlemen, were treated with the same severity as
poor and obscure people.

Let us give a summary of the
most striking cases of discipline. Several women, among them the wife of Ami
Perrin, the captain-general, were imprisoned for dancing (which was usually
connected with excesses). Bonivard, the hero of political liberty, and a friend
of Calvin, was cited before the Consistory because he had played at dice with
Clement Marot, the poet, for a quart of wine.718 A man was banished from the city for three months because, on
hearing an ass bray, he said jestingly: "He prays a beautiful psalm."719 A young man was punished because he gave his bride a book on
housekeeping with the remark: "This is the best Psalter." A lady of Ferrara was expelled from the city
for expressing sympathy with the Libertines, and abusing Calvin and the
Consistory. Three men who had laughed during the sermon were imprisoned for
three days. Another had to do public penance for neglecting to commune on
Whitsunday. Three children were punished because they remained outside of the
church during the sermon to eat cakes. A man who swore by the "body and
blood of Christ" was fined and condemned to stand for an hour in the
pillory on the public square. A child was whipped for calling his mother a
thief and a she-devil (diabless). A girl was beheaded for striking her
parents, to vindicate the dignity of the fifth commandment.

A banker was executed for repeated
adultery, but he died penitent and praised God for the triumph of justice. A
person named Chapuis was imprisoned for four days because he persisted in
calling his child Claude (a Roman Catholic saint) instead of Abraham, as the
minister wished, and saying that he would sooner keep his son unbaptized for
fifteen years.720 Bolsec,
Gentilis, and Castellio were expelled from the Republic for heretical opinions.
Men and women were burnt for witchcraft. Gruet was beheaded for sedition and
atheism. Servetus was burnt for heresy and blasphemy. The last is the most
flagrant case which, more than all others combined, has exposed the name of
Calvin to abuse and execration; but it should be remembered that he wished to
substitute the milder punishment of the sword for the stake, and in this point
at least he was in advance of the public opinion and usual practice of his age.721

The official acts of the Council
from 1541 to 1559 exhibit a dark chapter of censures, fines, imprisonments, and
executions. During the ravages of the pestilence in 1545 more than twenty men
and women were burnt alive for witchcraft, and a wicked conspiracy to spread
the horrible disease.722 From 1542
to 1546 fifty-eight judgments of death and seventy-six decrees of banishments
were passed.723 During
the years 1558 and 1559 the cases of various punishments for all sorts of
offences amounted to four hundred and fourteen—a very large proportion for a
population of 20,000.

The enemies of Calvin-Bolsec,
Audin, Galiffe (father and son)—make the most of these facts, and, ignoring all
the good he has done, condemn the great Reformer as a heartless and cruel
tyrant.724

It is impossible to deny that
this kind of legislation savors more of the austerity of old heathen Rome and
the Levitical code than of the gospel of Christ, and that the actual exercise
of discipline was often petty, pedantic, and unnecessarily severe. Calvin was,
as he himself confessed, not free from impatience, passion, and anger, which
were increased by his physical infirmities; but he was influenced by an honest
zeal for the purity of the Church, and not by personal malice. When he was
threatened by Perrin and the Favre family with a second expulsion, he wrote to
Perrin: "Such threats make no impression upon me. I did not return to
Geneva to obtain leisure and profit, nor will it be to my sorrow if I should
have to leave it again. It was the welfare and safety of the Church and State
that induced me to return."725 He must be judged by the standard of his own, and not of our, age.
The most cruel of those laws—against witchcraft, heresy, and blasphemy—were
inherited from the Catholic Middle Ages, and continued in force in all
countries of Europe, Protestant as well as Roman Catholic, down to the end of
the seventeenth century. Tolerance is a modern virtue. We shall return to this
subject again in the chapter on Servetus.

F. Trechsel: Libertiner, in the
first ed. of Herzog's Encykl., VIII. 375-380 (omitted in the second
ed.), and his Antitrinitarier, I. 177 sqq.—Henry II. 402 sqq.—Hundeshagen
in the "Studien und Kritiken," 1845, pp. 866 sqq.—Dyer, 177, 198, 368, 390 sqq.—Stähelin, I. 382 sqq.; 457 sqq. On the
side of Calvin.

Charles Schmidt: Les Libertins spirituels, Bâle, 1876 (pp. xiv. and 251).
From a manuscript autograph of one J. F., an adept of the sect, written between
1547 and 1550. An extract in La France Protest. III. 590 sq.

It required a ten years'
conflict till Calvin succeeded in carrying out his system of discipline. The
opposition began to manifest itself in 1545, during the raging of the pestilence;
it culminated at the trial of Servetus in 1553, and it finally broke down in
1555.

Calvin compares himself in this
controversy with David fighting against the Philistines. "If I should
describe," he says in the Preface to his Commentary on the Psalms (1557),726"the course of my struggles
by which the Lord has exercised me from this period, it would make a long
story, but a brief reference may suffice. It affords me no slight consolation
that David preceded me in these conflicts. For as the Philistines and other
foreign foes vexed this holy king by continual wars, and as the wickedness and
treachery of the faithless of his own house grieved him still more, so was I on
all sides assailed, and had scarcely a moment's rest from outward or inward
struggles. But when Satan had made so many efforts to destroy our Church, it
came at length to this, that I, unwarlike and timid as I am,727found myself compelled to oppose
my own body to the murderous assault, and so to ward it off. Five years long
had we to struggle without ceasing for the upholding of discipline; for these
evil-doers were endowed with too great a degree of power to be easily overcome;
and a portion of the people, perverted by their means, wished only for an
unbridled freedom. To such worthless men, despisers of the holy law, the ruin of
the Church was a matter of utter indifference, could they but obtain the
liberty to do whatever they desired. Many were induced by necessity and hunger,
some by ambition or by a shameful desire of gain, to attempt a general
overthrow, and to risk their own ruin as well as ours, rather than be subject
to the laws. Scarcely a single thing, I believe, was left unattempted by them
during this long period which we might not suppose to have been prepared in the
workshop of Satan. Their wretched designs could only be attended with a
shameful disappointment. A melancholy drama was thus presented to me; for much
as they deserved all possible punishment, I should have been rejoiced to see
them passing their lives in peace and respectability: which might have been the
case, had they not wholly rejected every kind of prudent admonition."

At one time he almost despaired
of success. He wrote to Farel, Dec. 14, 1547: "Affairs are in such a state
of confusion that I despair of being able longer to retain the Church, at least
by my own endeavors. May the Lord hear your incessant prayers in our
behalf." And to Viret he wrote, on
Dec. 17, 1547: "Wickedness has now reached such a pitch here that I hardly
hope that the Church can be upheld much longer, at least by means of my ministry.
Believe me, my power is broken, unless God stretch forth his hand."728

The adversaries of Calvin were,
with a few exceptions, the same who had driven him away in 1538. They never
cordially consented to his recall. They yielded for a time to the pressure of
public opinion and political necessity; but when he carried out the scheme of
discipline much more rigorously than they had expected, they showed their old
hostility, and took advantage of every censurable act of the Consistory or
Council. They hated him worse than the pope.729 They abhorred the very word "discipline." They resorted to personal indignities and
every device of intimidation; they nicknamed him "Cain," and gave his
name to the dogs of the street; they insulted him on his way to the
lecture-room; they fired one night fifty shots before his bed-chamber; they
threatened him in the pulpit; they approached the communion table to wrest the
sacred elements from his hands, but he refused to profane the sacrament and
overawed them. On another occasion he walked into the midst of an excited crowd
and offered his breast to their daggers. As late as October 15, 1554, he wrote
to an old friend: "Dogs bark at me on all sides. Everywhere I am saluted
with the name of 'heretic,' and all the calumnies that can possibly be invented
are heaped upon me; in a word, the enemies among my own flock attack me with
greater bitterness than my declared enemies among the papists."730

And yet in the midst of these
troubles be continued to discharge all his duties, and found time to write some
of his most important works.

It seems incredible that a man
of feeble constitution and physical timidity should have been able to triumph
over such determined and ferocious opposition. The explanation is in the
justice of his cause, and the moral purity and "majesty of his character,
which so strongly impressed the Genevese.

We must distinguish two parties
among Calvin's enemies—the Patriots, who opposed him on political grounds, and
the Libertines, who hated his religion. It would be unjust to charge all the
Patriots with the irreligious sentiments of the Libertines. But they made
common cause for the overthrow of Calvin and his detested system of discipline.
They had many followers among the discontented and dissolute rabble which
abounds in every large city, and is always ready for a revolution, having
nothing to lose and everything to gain.

1. The Patriots or Children
of Geneva (Enfants de Genève), as they called themselves, belonged to some of
the oldest and most influential families of Geneva,—Favre (or Fabri), Perrin,
Vandel, Berthelier, Ameaux.731 They or their fathers had taken an active part in the achievement
of political independence, and even in the introduction of the Reformation, as
a means of protecting that independence. But they did not care for the positive
doctrines of the Reformation. They wanted liberty without law. They resisted
every encroachment on their personal freedom and love of amusements. They hated
the evangelical discipline more than the yoke of Savoy.

They also disliked Calvin as a
foreigner, who was not even naturalized before 1559. In the pride and prejudice
of nativism, they denounced the refugees, who had sacrificed home and fortune
to religion, as a set of adventurers, soldiers of fortune, bankrupts, and spies
of the Reformer. "These dogs of Frenchmen," they said, "are the
cause that we are slaves, and must bow before Calvin and confess our sins. Let
the preachers and their gang go to the —." They deprived the refugees of
the right to carry arms, and opposed their admission to the rights of
citizenship, as there was danger that they might outnumber and outvote the
native citizens. Calvin secured, in 1559, through a majority of the Council, at
one time, the admission of three hundred of these refugees, mostly Frenchmen.

The Patriots disliked also the
protectorate of Bern, although Bern never favored the strict theology and
discipline of Calvin.

2. The Libertines732or Spirituels, as they called themselves, were far worse than
the Patriots. They formed the opposite extreme to the severe discipline of
Calvin. He declares that they were the most pernicious of all the sects that
appeared since the time of the ancient Gnostics and Manichaeans, and that they
answer the prophetic description in the Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle
of Jude. He traces their immediate origin to Coppin of Yssel and Quintin of
Hennegau, in the Netherlands, and to an ex-priest, Pocquet or Pocques, who spent
some time in Geneva, and wanted to get a certificate from Calvin; but Calvin
saw through the man and refused it. They revived the antinomian doctrines of
the mediaeval sect of the "Brethren and Sisters of the Free Spirit,"
a branch of the Beghards, who had their headquarters at Cologne and the Lower
Rhine, and emancipated themselves not only from the Church, but also from the
laws of morality.733

The Libertines described by
Calvin were antinomian pantheists. They confounded the boundaries of truth and
error, of right and wrong. Under the pretext of the freedom of the spirit, they
advocated the unbridled license of the flesh. Their spiritualism ended in
carnal materialism. They taught that there is but one spirit, the Spirit of
God, who lives in all creatures, which are nothing without him. "What I or
you do," said Quintin, "is done by God, and what God does, we do; for
he is in us." Sin is a mere
negation or privation, yea, an idle illusion which disappears as soon as it is
known and disregarded. Salvation consists in the deliverance from the phantom
of sin. There is no Satan, and no angels, good or bad. They denied the truth of
the gospel history. The crucifixion and resurrection of Christ have only a
symbolical meaning to show us that sin does not exist for us.

The Libertines taught the community
of goods and of women, and elevated spiritual marriage above legal marriage,
which is merely carnal and not binding. The wife of Ameaux justified her wild
licentiousness by the doctrine of the communion of saints, and by the first
commandment of God given to man: "Be fruitful and multiply and replenish
the earth (Gen. 1:28).

The Libertines rejected the
Scriptures as a dead letter, or they resorted to wild allegorical
interpretations to suit their fancies. They gave to each of the Apostles a
ridiculous nickname.734 Some
carried their system to downright atheism and blasphemous anti-Christianity.

They used a peculiar jargon,
like the Gypsies, and distorted common words into a mysterious meaning. They
were experts in the art of simulation and justified pious fraud by the parables
of Christ. They accommodated themselves to Catholics or Protestants according
to circumstances, and concealed their real opinions from the uninitiated.

The sect made progress among the
higher classes of France, where they converted about four thousand persons.
Quintin and Pocquet insinuated themselves into the favor of Queen Marguerite of
Navarre, who protected and supported them at her little court at Nérac, yet
without adopting their opinions and practices.735 She took offence at Calvin's severe attack upon them. He justified
his course in a reply of April 28, 1545, which is a fine specimen of courtesy,
frankness, and manly dignity. Calvin assured the queen, whose protection he had
himself enjoyed while a fugitive from persecution, that he intended no
reflection on her honor, or disrespect to her royal majesty, and that he wrote
simply in obedience to his duty as a minister. "Even a dog barks if he
sees any one assault his master. How could I be silent if God's truth is
assailed?736... As for your saying that you would not like to
have such a servant as myself, I confess that I am not qualified to render you
any great service, nor have you need of it ... . Nevertheless, the disposition is
not wanting, and your disdain shall not prevent my being at heart your humble
servant. For the rest, those who know me are well aware that I have never
studied to enter into the courts of princes, for I was never tempted to court
worldly honors.737 For I
have good reason to be contented with the service of that good Master, who has
accepted me and retained me in the honorable office which I hold, however
contemptible in the eyes of the world. I should, indeed, be ungrateful beyond
measure if I did not prefer this condition to all the riches and honors of the
world."738

Beza says: "It was owing to
Calvin that this horrid sect, in which all the most monstrous heresies of
ancient times were renewed, was kept within the confines of Holland and the
adjacent provinces."

During the trial of Servetus the
political and religious Libertines combined in an organized effort for the
overthrow of Calvin at Geneva, but were finally defeated by a failure of an
attempted rebellion in May, 1555.

§ 109. The Leaders of the
Libertines and their punishment: — Gruet, Perrin, Ameaux, Vandel, Berthelier.

We shall now give sketches of
the chief Patriots and Libertines, and their quarrels with Calvin and his
system of discipline. The heretical opponents—Bolsec, Castellio, Servetus—will
be considered in a separate chapter on the Doctrinal Controversies.

1. Jacques Gruet was the first victim of Calvin's discipline who
suffered death for sedition and blasphemy. His case is the most famous next to
that of Servetus. Gruet739was a Libertine of the worst type, both
politically and religiously, and would have been condemned to death in any
other country at that time. He was a Patriot descended from an old and
respectable family, and formerly a canon. He lay under suspicion of having
attempted to poison Viret in 1535. He wrote verses against Calvin and the
refugees which (as Audin says) were "more malignant than
poetic." He was a regular
frequenter of taverns, and opposed to any rules in Church and State which
interfered with personal liberty. When in church, he looked boldly and
defiantly into the face of the preacher. He first adopted the Bernese fashion
of wearing breeches with plaits at the knees, and openly defied the discipline
of the Consistory which forbade it. Calvin called him a scurvy fellow, and
gives an unfavorable account of his moral and religious character, which the
facts fully justified.

On the 27th of June, 1547, a few
days after the wife of Perrin had defied the Consistory,740the following libel, written in
the Savoyard patois, was attached to Calvin's pulpit in St. Peter's Church: —

"Gross hypocrite (Gros
panfar), thou
and thy companions will gain little by your pains. If you do not save
yourselves by flight, nobody shall prevent your overthrow, and you will curse
the hour when you left your monkery. Warning has been already given that the
devil and his renegade priests were come hither to ruin every thing. But after
people have suffered long they avenge themselves. Take care that you are not
served like Mons. Verle of Fribourg.741 We will not have so many masters. Mark well what I say."742

The Council arrested Jacques
Gruet, who had been heard uttering threats against Calvin a few days
previously, and had written obscene and impious verses and letters. In his
house were found a copy of Calvin's work against the Libertines with a marginal
note, Toutes folies, and several papers and letters filled with abuse of
Calvin as a haughty, ambitious, and obstinate hypocrite who wished to be
adored, and to rob the pope of his honor. There were also found two Latin pages
in Gruet's handwriting, in which the Scriptures were ridiculed, Christ
blasphemed, and the immortality of the soul called a dream and a fable.

Gruet was tortured every day for
a month, after the inhuman fashion of that age.743 He confessed that he had affixed the libel, and that the papers
found in his house belonged to him; but he refused to name any accomplices. He
was condemned for religious, moral, and political offences; being found guilty
of expressing contempt for religion; of declaring that laws, both human and
divine, were but the work of man's caprice; and that fornication was not
criminal when both parties were consenting; and of threatening the clergy and
the Council itself.744

He was beheaded on the 26th of
July, 1547. The execution instead of terrifying the Libertines made them more
furious than ever. Three days afterwards the Council was informed that more
than twenty young men had entered into a conspiracy to throw Calvin and his
colleagues into the Rhone. He could not walk the streets without being insulted
and threatened.

Two or three years after the
death of Gruet, a treatise of his was discovered full of horrible blasphemies
against Christ, the Virgin Mary, the Prophets and Apostles, against the
Scriptures, and all religion. He aimed to show that the founders of Judaism and
Christianity were criminals, and that Christ was justly crucified. Some have confounded
this treatise with the book "De tribus Impostoribus," which dates from the age
of Emperor Frederick II., and puts Moses, Christ, and Mohammed on a level as
religious impostors.

Gruet's book was, at Calvin's
advice, publicly burnt by the hangman before Gruet's house, May 22, 1550.745

2. Ami Perrin (Amy Pierre), the military chief (captain-general)
of the Republic, was the most popular and influential leader of the Patriotic
party. He had been one of the earliest promoters of the Reformation, though
from political rather than religious motives; he had protected Farel against
the violence of the priests, and had been appointed deputy to Strassburg to
bring Calvin back to Geneva.746 He was one of the six lay-members who, with the ministers, drew up
the Ecclesiastical Ordinances of 1542, and for some time he supported Calvin in
his reforms. He could wield the sword, but not the pen. He was vain, ambitious,
pretentious, and theatrical. Calvin called him, in derision, the stage-emperor,
who played now the "Caesar comicus," and now the "Caesar tragicus."747

Perrin's wife, Francesca, was a
daughter of François Favre, who had taken a prominent part in the political
struggle against Savoy, but mistook freedom for license, and hated Calvin as a
tyrant and a hypocrite. His whole family shared in this hatred. Francesca had
an excessive fondness for dancing and revelry, a violent temper, and an abusive
tongue. Calvin called her "Penthesilea" (the queen of the Amazons who
fought a battle against the Greeks, and was slain by Achilles), and "a
prodigious fury."748

He found out too late that it is
foolish and dangerous to quarrel with a woman. He forgot Christ's conduct
towards the adulteress, and Mary Magdalene.

A disgraceful scene which took
place at a wedding in the house of the widow Balthazar at Belle Rive, brought
upon the family of Favre, who were present, the censure of the Consistory and
the punishment of the Council. Perrin, his wife and her father were imprisoned
for a few weeks in April, 1546. Favre refused to make any confession, and went
to prison, shouting: "Liberty!
Liberty! I would give a thousand
crowns to have a general council."749 Perrin made an humble apology to the Consistory. Calvin plainly
told the Favre family that as long as they lived in Geneva they must obey the
laws of Geneva, though every one of them wore a diadem.750

From this time on Perrin stood
at the head of the opposition to Calvin. He loudly denounced the Consistory as
a popish tribunal. He secured so much influence over the Council that a
majority voted, in March, 1547, to take the control of Church discipline into
their own hands. But Calvin made such a vigorous resistance that it was
determined eventually to abide by the established Ordinances.751

Perrin was sent as ambassador to
Paris (April 26, 1547), and was received there with much distinction. The
Cardinal du Bellay sounded him as to whether some French troops under his
command could be stationed at Geneva to frustrate the hostile designs of the
German emperor against Switzerland. He gave a conditional consent. This created
a suspicion against his loyalty.

During his absence, Madame
Perrin and her father were again summoned before the Consistory for
bacchanalian conduct (June 23, 1547). Favre refused to appear. Francesca denied
the right of the court to take cognizance of her private life. When
remonstrated with, she flew into a passion, and abused the preacher, Abel
Poupin, as "a reviler, a slanderer of her father, a coarse swine-herd, and
a malicious liar." She was again
imprisoned, but escaped with one of her sons. Meeting Abel Poupin at the gate
of the city she insulted him afresh and "even more shamefully than
before."752

On the 27th of June, 1547,
Gruet's threatening libel was published.753 Calvin was reported to have been killed. He received letters from
Burgogne and Lyons that the Children of Geneva had offered five hundred crowns
for his head.754

On his return from Paris, Perrin
was capitally indicted on a charge of treason, and of intending to quarter two
hundred French cavalry, under his own command, at Geneva. His excuse was that
he had accepted the command of these troops with the reservation of the
approval of the government of Geneva. Bonivard, the old soldier of liberty and
prisoner of Chillon, took part against Perrin. The ambassadors of Bern
endeavored to divert the storm from the head of Perrin to the French ambassador
Maigret the Magnifique. Perrin was expelled from the Council, and the office of
captain-general was suppressed, but he was released from prison, together with
his wife and father-in-law, Nov. 29, 1547.755

The Libertines summoned all
their forces for a reaction. They called a meeting of the Council of Two
Hundred, where they expected most support. A violent scene took place on Dec.
16, 1547, in the Senate house, when Calvin, unarmed and at the risk of his
life, appeared in the midst of the armed crowd and called upon them, if they
designed to shed blood, to begin with him. He succeeded, by his courage and
eloquence, in calming the wild storm and preventing a disgraceful carnage. It
was a sublime victory of reason over passion, of moral over physical force.756

The ablest of the detractors of
Calvin cannot help paying here an involuntary tribute to him and to the truth
of history. This is his dramatic account.

"The Council of the Two
Hundred was assembled. Never had any session been more tumultuous; the parties,
weary of speaking, began to appeal to arms. The people heard the appeal. Calvin
appears, unattended; he is received at the lower part of the hall with cries of
death. He folds his arms, and looks the agitators fixedly in the face. Not one
of them dares strike him. Then, advancing through the midst of the groups, with
his breast uncovered: 'If you want blood,' says he, 'there are still a few
drops here; strike, then!' Not an arm
is raised. Calvin then slowly ascends the stairway to the Council of the Two Hundred.
The hall was on the point of being drenched with blood; swords were flashing on
beholding the Reformer, the weapons were lowered, and a few words sufficed to
calm the agitation. Calvin, taking the arm of one of the councillors, again
descends the stairs, and cries out to the people that he wishes to address
them. He does speak, and with such energy and feeling, that tears flow from
their eyes. They embrace each other, and the crowd retires in silence. The
patriots had lost the day. From that moment, it was easy to foretell that
victory would remain with the Reformer. The Libertines, who had shown
themselves so bold when it was a question of destroying some front of a
Catholic edifice, overturning some saint's niche, or throwing down an old
wooden cross weakened by age, trembled like women before this man, who, in
fact, on this occasion, exhibited something of the Homeric heroism."757

Notwithstanding this triumph,
Calvin did not trust enemies, and expressed in letters to Farel and Viret even
the fear that he could no longer maintain his position unless God stretch forth
his hand for his protection.758

A sort of truce was patched up
between the contending parties. "Our çi-devant Caesar (hesternus noster Caesar)," Calvin wrote to Farel,
Dec. 28, 1547, "denied that he had any grudge against me, and I
immediately met him half-way and pressed out the matter from the sore. In a
grave and moderate speech, I used, indeed, some sharp reproofs (punctiones acutas), but not of a nature to wound;
yet though he grasped my hand whilst promising to reform, I still fear that I
have spoken to deaf ears."759

In the next year, Calvin was
censured by the Council for saying, in a private letter to Viret which had been
intercepted, that the Genevese "under pretence of Christ wanted to rule
without Christ," and that he had to combat their, hypocrisy." He called to his aid Viret and Farel to make
a sort of apology.760

Perrin behaved quietly, and
gained an advantage from this incident. He was restored to his councillorship
and the office of captain-general (which had been abolished). He was even
elected First Syndic, in February, 1549. He held that position also during the
trial of Servetus, and opposed the sentence of death in the Council (1553).

Shortly after the execution of
Servetus, the Libertines raised a demonstration against Farel, who had come to
Geneva and preached a very severe sermon against them (Nov. 1, 1553).761 Philibert Berthelier and his brother François Daniel, who had
charge of the mint, stirred up the laborers to throw Farel into the Rhone. But
his friends formed a guard around him, and his defence before the Council
convinced the audience of his innocence. It was resolved that all enmity should
be forgotten and buried at a banquet. Perrin, the chief Syndic, in a sense of
weakness, or under the impulse of his better feelings, begged Farel's pardon,
and declared that he would ever regard him as his spiritual father and pastor.762

After this time Calvin's friends
gained the ascendency in the Council. A large number of religious refugees were
admitted to the rights of citizenship.

Perrin, then a member of the
Little Council, and his friends, Peter Vandel and Philibert Berthelier, determined
on rule or ruin, now concocted a desperate and execrable conspiracy, which
proved their overthrow. They proposed to kill all foreigners who had fled to
Geneva for the sake of religion, together with their Genevese sympathizers, on
a Sunday while people were at church. But, fortunately, the plot was discovered
before it was ripe for execution. When the rioters were to be tried before the
Council of the Two Hundred, Perrin and several other ringleaders had the
audacity to take their places as judges; but when he saw that matters were
taking a serious turn in favor of law and order, he fled from Geneva, together
with Vandel and Berthelier. They were summoned by the public herald, but
refused to appear. On the day appointed for the trial five of the fugitives
were condemned to death; Perrin, moreover, to have his right hand cut off, with
which he had seized the bâton of the Syndic at the riot. The sentence was
executed in effigy in June, 1555.763

Their estates were confiscated,
and their wives banished from Geneva. The office of captain-general was again
abolished to avoid the danger of a military dictatorship.

But the government of Bern
protected the fugitives, and allowed them to commit outrages on Genevese
citizens within their reach, and to attack Calvin and Geneva with all sorts of
reproaches and calumnies.

Thus the "comic
Caesar" ended as the "tragic Caesar." An impartial biographer of Calvin calls the last chapter in
Perrin's career "a caricature of the Catilinarian conspiracy."764

3. The case of Pierre Ameaux shows a close connection
between the political and religious Libertines. He was a member of the Council
of Two Hundred. He sought and obtained a divorce from his wife, who was
condemned to perpetual imprisonment for the theory and practice of free-lovism
of the worst kind. But he hated Calvin's theology and discipline. At a supper
party in his own house he freely indulged in drink, and roundly abused Calvin
as a teacher of false doctrine, as a very bad man, and nothing but a Picard.765

For this offence he was
imprisoned by the Council for two months and condemned to a fine of sixty
dollars. He made an apology and retracted his words. But Calvin was not
satisfied, and demanded a second trial. The Council condemned him to a
degrading punishment called the amende honorable, namely, to parade through the streets in his shirt,
with bare head, and a lighted torch in his hand, and to ask on bended knees the
pardon of God, of the Council, and of Calvin. This harsh judgment provoked a
popular outbreak in the quarter of St. Gervais, but the Council proceeded in a
body to the spot and ordered the wine-shops to be closed and a gibbet to be
erected to frighten the mob. The sentence on Ameaux was executed April 5, 1546.
Two preachers, Henri de la Mare and Aimé Maigret, who had taken part in the
drinking scene, were deposed. The former had said before the Council that
Calvin was, a good and virtuous man, and of great intellect, but sometimes
governed by his passions, impatient, full of hatred, and vindictive." The latter had committed more serious
offences.766

4. Pierre Vandel was a handsome, brilliant, and frivolous
cavalier, and loved to exhibit himself with a retinue of valets and courtesans,
with rings on his fingers and golden chains on his breast. He had been active
in the expulsion of Calvin, and opposed him after his recall. He was imprisoned
for his debaucheries and insolent conduct before the Consistory. He was Syndic
in 1548. He took a leading part in the conspiracy of Perrin and shared his
condemnation and exile.767

5. Philibert Berthelier (or Bertelier, Bertellier), an unworthy
son of the distinguished patriot who, in 1519, had been beheaded for his part
in the war of independence, belonged to the most malignant enemies of Calvin.
He had gone to Noyon, if we are to believe the assertion of Bolsec, to bring
back scandalous reports concerning the early life of the Reformer, which the
same Bolsec published thirteen years after Calvin's death, but without any
evidence.768 If the
Libertines had been in possession of such information, they would have made use
of it. Berthelier is characterized by Beza as "a man of the most
consummate impudence" and "guilty of many iniquities." He was excommunicated by the Consistory in
1551 for abusing Calvin, for not going to church, and other offences, and for
refusing to make any apology. Calvin was absent during these sessions, owing to
sickness. Berthelier appealed to the Council, of which he was the secretary.
The Council at first confirmed the decision of the Consistory, but afterwards
released him, during the syndicate of Perrin and the trial of Servetus, and
gave him letters of absolution signed with the seal of the Republic (1553).769

Calvin was thus brought into
direct conflict with the Council, and forced to the alternative of submission
or disobedience; in the latter case he ran the risk of a second and final
expulsion. But he was not the man to yield in such a crisis. He resolved to
oppose to the Council his inflexible non possumus.

On the Sunday which followed the
absolution of Berthelier, the September communion was to be celebrated. Calvin
preached as usual in St. Peter's, and declared at the close of the sermon that
he would never profane the sacrament by administering it to an excommunicated
person. Then raising his voice and lifting up his hands, he exclaimed in the
words of St. Chrysostom: "I will lay down my life ere these hands shall
reach forth the sacred things of God to those who have been branded as his
despisers."

This was another moment of
sublime Christian heroism.

Perrin, who had some decent
feeling of respect for religion and for Calvin's character, was so much
impressed by this solemn warning that he secretly gave orders to Berthelier not
to approach the communion table. The communion was celebrated, as Beza reports,
"in profound silence, and under a solemn awe, as if the Deity himself had
been visibly present among them."770

In the afternoon, Calvin, as for
the last time, preached on Paul's farewell address to the Ephesian Elders (Acts
20:31); he exhorted the congregation to abide in the doctrine of Christ, and
declared his willingness to serve the Church and each of its members, but added
in conclusion: "Such is the state of things here that this may be my last
sermon to you; for they who are in power would force me to do what God does not
permit. I must, therefore, dearly beloved, like Paul, commend you to God, and
to the Word of his grace."771

These words made a deep impression
even upon his worst foes. The next day Calvin, with his colleagues and the
Presbytery, demanded of the Council to grant them an audience before the
people, as a law was attacked which had been sanctioned by the General
Assembly. The Council refused the request, but resolved to suspend the decree
by which the power of excommunication was declared to belong to the Council.

In the midst of this agitation
the trial of Servetus was going on, and was brought to a close by his death at
the stake, Oct. 27. A few days afterwards (Nov. 3), Berthelier renewed his
request to be admitted to the Lord's Table—he who despised religion. The
Council which had condemned the heretic, was not quite willing to obey Calvin
as a legislator, and wished to retain the power of excommunication in their own
hands. Yet, in order to avoid a rupture with the ministers, who would not yield
to any compromise, the Council resolved to solicit the opinions of four Swiss
cantons on the subject.772

Bullinger, in behalf of the
Church and magistracy of Zürich, replied in December, substantially approving
of Calvin's view, though he admonished him privately against undue severity.
The magistrates of Bern replied that they had no excommunication in their
Church. The answers of the two other cantons are lost, but seem to have been
rather favorable to Calvin's cause.

In the meantime matters assumed
a more promising aspect. On Jan. 1, 1554, at a grand dinner given by the
Council and judges, Calvin being present, a desire for peace was universally
expressed. On the second of February the Council of Two Hundred swore, with
uplifted hands, to conform to the doctrines of the Reformation, to forget the
past, to renounce all hatred and animosity, and to live together in unity.

Calvin regarded this merely as a truce, and looked for
further troubles. He declared before the Council that he readily forgave all
his enemies, but could not sacrifice the rights of the Consistory, and would
rather leave Geneva. The irritation continued in 1554. The opposition broke out
again in the conspiracy against the foreigners and the council, which has been
already described. The plot failed. Berthelier was, with Perrin, condemned to
death, but escaped with him the execution of justice by flight.773

This was the end of Libertinism
in Geneva.

§ 110. Geneva Regenerated. Testimonies Old and New.

The final result of this long
conflict with Libertinism is the best vindication of Calvin. Geneva came out of
it a new city, and with a degree of moral and spiritual prosperity which
distinguished her above any other Christian city for several generations. What
a startling contrast she presents, for instance, to Rome, the city of the vicar
of Christ and his cardinals, as described by Roman Catholic writers of the
sixteenth century! If ever in this
wicked world the ideal of Christian society can be realized in a civil
community with a mixed population, it was in Geneva from the middle of the
sixteenth to the middle of the eighteenth century, when the revolutionary and
infidel genius of Rousseau (a native of Geneva) and of Voltaire (who resided
twenty years in the neighborhood, on his estate at Ferney) began to destroy the
influence of the Reformer.

After the final collapse of the
Libertine party in 1555, the peace was not seriously disturbed, and Calvin's
work progressed without interruption. The authorities of the State were as
zealous for the honor of the Church and the glory of Christ as the ministers of
the gospel. The churches were well filled; the Word of God was preached daily;
family worship was the rule; prayer and singing of Psalms never ceased; the
whole city seemed to present the aspect of a community of sincere, earnest
Christians who practised what they believed. Every Friday a spiritual
conference and experience meeting, called the "Congregation," was
held in St. Peter's, after the model of the meetings of
"prophesying," which had been introduced in Zürich and Bern. Peter
Paul Vergerius, the former papal nuncio, who spent a short time in Geneva, was
especially struck with these conferences. "All the ministers," he
says,774"and many citizens attend. One of the
preachers reads and briefly explains a text from the Scriptures. Another
expresses his views on the subject, and then any member may make a contribution
if so disposed. You see, it is an imitation of that custom in the Corinthian
Church of which Paul speaks, and I have received much edification from these
public colloquies."

The material prosperity of the
city was not neglected. Greater cleanliness was introduced, which is next to
godliness, and promotes it. Calvin insisted on the removal of all filth from
the houses and the narrow and crooked streets. He induced the magistracy to
superintend the markets, and to prevent the sale ofunhealthy food, which was to
be cast into the Rhone. Low taverns and drinking shops were abolished, and
intemperance diminished. Mendicancy on the streets was prohibited. A hospital
and poor-house was provided and well conducted. Efforts were made to give
useful employment to every man that could work. Calvin urged the Council in a
long speech, Dec. 29, 1544, to introduce the cloth and silk industry, and two
months afterwards he presented a detailed plan, in which he recommended to lend
to the Syndic, Jean Ami Curtet, a sufficient sum from the public treasury for
starting the enterprise. The factories were forthwith established and soon
reached the highest degree of prosperity. The cloth and silk of Geneva were
highly prized in Switzerland and France, and laid the foundation for the
temporal wealth of the city. When Lyons, by the patronage of the French crown,
surpassed the little Republic in the manufacture of silk, Geneva had already
begun to make up for the loss by the manufacture of watches, and retained the
mastery in this useful industry until 1885, when American machinery produced a successful
rivalry.775

Altogether, Geneva owes her
moral and temporal prosperity, her intellectual and literary activity, her
social refinement, and her world-wide fame very largely to the reformation and
discipline of Calvin. He set a high and noble example of a model community. It
is impossible, indeed, to realize his church ideal in a large country, even
with all the help of the civil government. The Puritans attempted it in England
and in New England, but succeeded only in part, and only for a short period.
But nothing should prevent a pastor from making an effort in his own
congregation on the voluntary principle. Occasionally we find parallel cases in
small communities under the guidance of pastors of exceptional genius and
consecration, such as Oberlin in the Steinthal, Harms in Hermannsburg, and Löhe
in Neudettelsau, who exerted an inspiring influence far beyond their fields of
labor.

Let us listen to some
testimonies of visitors who saw with their own eyes the changes wrought in
Geneva through Calvin's influence.

William Farel, who knew better
than any other man the state of Geneva under Roman Catholic rule, and during
the early stages of reform before the arrival of Calvin, visited the city again
in 1557, and wrote to Ambrosius Blaurer that he would gladly listen and learn
there with the humblest of the people, and that "he would rather be the
last in Geneva than the first anywhere else."776

John Knox, the Reformer of
Scotland, who studied several years in Geneva as a pupil of Calvin (though five
years his senior), and as pastor of the English congregation, wrote to his
friend Locke, in 1556: "In my heart I could have wished, yea, I cannot
cease to wish, that it might please God to guide and conduct yourself to this
place where, I neither fear nor am ashamed to say, is the most perfect
school of Christ that ever was in the earth since the days of the Apostles.
In other places I confess Christ to be truly preached; but manners and religion
to be so seriously reformed, I have not yet seen in any other place
besides."777

Dr. Valentine Andreae
(1586-1654), a bright and shining light of the Lutheran Church of Würtemberg (a
grandson of Jacob Andreae, the chief author of the Lutheran Formula of
Concord), a man full of glowing love to Christ, visited Geneva in 1610,
nearly fifty years after Calvin's death, with the prejudices of an orthodox
Lutheran against Calvinism, and was astonished to find in that city a state of
religion which came nearer to his ideal of a Christocracy than any community he
had seen in his extensive travels, and even in his German fatherland.

"When I was in
Geneva," he writes, "I observed something great which I shall
remember and desire as long as I live. There is in that place not only the
perfect institute of a perfect republic, but, as a special ornament, a moral
discipline, which makes weekly investigations into the conduct, and even the
smallest transgressions of the citizens, first through the district inspectors,
then through the Seniors, and finally through the magistrates, as the nature of
the offence and the hardened state of the offender may require. All cursing and
swearing gambling, luxury, strife, hatred, fraud, etc., are forbidden; while
greater sins are hardly heard of. What a glorious ornament of the Christian
religion is such a purity of morals! We
must lament with tears that it is wanting with us, and almost totally
neglected. If it were not for the difference of religion, I would have forever
been chained to that place by the agreement in morals, and I have ever since
tried to introduce something like it into our churches. No less distinguished
than the public discipline was the domestic discipline of my landlord, Scarron,
with its daily devotions, reading of the Scriptures, the fear of God in word
and in deed, temperance in meat and drink and dress. I have not found greater
purity of morals even in my father's home."778

A stronger and more impartial
testimony of the deep and lasting effect of Calvin's discipline so long after
his death could hardly be imagined.

NOTES. MODERN TESTIMONIES.

The condemnation of Calvin's
discipline and his conduct toward the Libertines has been transplanted to
America by two dignitaries of the Roman Church—Dr. John McGill, bishop of
Richmond, the translator of Audin's Life of Calvin (Louisville, n. d.),
and Dr. M. S. Spalding, archbishop of Baltimore (between 1864 and 1872), in his
History of the Protestant Reformation (Louisville, 1860), 8th ed.,
Baltimore, 1875. This book is not a history, but a chronique scandaleuse of
the Reformation, and unworthy of a Christian scholar. Dr. Spalding devotes
twenty-two pages to Calvin (vol. I. 370-392), besides an appendix on Rome and
Geneva, and a letter addressed to Merle D'Aubigné and Bungener (pp. 495-530).
He ignores his Commentaries and Institutes, which have commanded the admiration
even of eminent Roman Catholic divines, and simply repeats, with some original
mistakes and misspellings, the slanders of Bolsec and Audin, which have long
since been refuted.

"Calvin," he says,
"crushed the liberties of the people in the name of liberty. A foreigner,
he insinuated himself into Geneva and, serpent-like, coiled himself around the
very heart of the Republic which had given him hospitable shelter. He thus
stung the very bosom which had warmed him. He was as watchful as a tiger
preparing to pounce on its prey, and as treacherous ... . His reign in Geneva was
truly a reign of terror. He combined the cruelty of Danton and Robespierre with
the eloquence of Marat and Mirabeau ... . He was worse than 'the Chalif of
Geneva,' as Audin calls him—he was a very Nero!... He was a monster of impurity
and iniquity. The story of his having been guilty of a crime of nameless
turpitude at Noyon, though denied by his friends, yet rests upon very
respectable authority. Bolsec, a contemporary writer, relates it as certain ... .
He ended his life in despair, and died of a most shameful and disgusting
disease which God has threatened to rebellious and accursed
reprobates." The early Calvinists
were hypocrites, and "their boasted austerity was little better than a
sham, if it was not even a cloak to cover enormous wickedness. They exhibit
their own favorite doctrine of total depravity in its fullest practical
development!" The archbishop,
however, is kind enough to add in conclusion (p. 391), that he "would not
be understood as wishing to reflect upon the character or conduct of the
present professors of Calvinistic doctrines, many of whom are men estimable for
their civic virtues."

The best answer to such a
caricature, which turns the very truth into a lie, is presented in the facts of
this chapter. With ignorance and prejudice even the gods contend in vain. But
it is proper, at this place, to record the judgments of impartial historians
who have studied the sources, and cannot be charged with any doctrinal bias in
favor of Calvinism. Comp. other testimonies in § 68, pp. 270 sqq.

Marc-Monnier was born in
Florence of French parents, 1829, distinguished as a poet and historian,
professor of literature in the University of Geneva, and died 1885. His "La
Renaissance de Dante à Luther" (1884) was crowned by the French Academy.

A remarkable tribute from a
scholar who was no theologian, and no clergyman, but thoroughly at home in the
history, literature, manners, and society of Geneva. Marc-Monnier speaks also
very highly of Calvin's merits as a French classic, and quotes with approval
the judgment of Paul Lacroix (in his ed. of select Oeuvres
françoises de J. Calvin): "Le style de Calvin est un des plus grands styles du
seizième siècle: simple, correct, élégant, clair, ingénieux, animé, varie de
formes et de tons, il a commencé à fixer la langue française pour la prose,
comme celui de Clement Marot l'avait fait pour les vers."

George Bancroft.

George Bancroft, the
American historian and statesman, born at Worcester, Mass., 1800, died at
Washington, 1891, served his country as secretary of the Navy, and ambassador
at London and Berlin, with the greatest credit.

"It is intolerance only,
which would limit the praise of Calvin to a single sect, or refuse to reverence
his virtues and regret his failings. He lived in the time when nations were
shaken to their centre by the excitement of the Reformation; when the fields of
Holland and France were wet with the carnage of persecution; when vindictive
monarchs on the one side threatened all Protestants with outlawry and death,
and the Vatican, on the other, sent forth its anathemas and its cry for blood.
In that day, it is too true, the influence of an ancient, long-established,
hardly disputed error, the Constant danger of his position, the intense desire
to secure union among the antagonists of popery, the engrossing consciousness
that his struggle was for the emancipation of the Christian world, induced the
great Reformer to defend the use of the sword for the extirpation of heresy.
Reprobating and lamenting his adhesion to the cruel doctrine, which all
Christendom had for centuries implicitly received, we may, as republicans,
remember that Calvin was not only the founder of a sect, but foremost among the
most efficient of modern republican legislators. More truly benevolent to the
human race than Solon, more self-denying than Lycurgus, the genius of Calvin
infused enduring elements into the institutions of Geneva, and made it for the
modern world the impregnable fortress of popular liberty, the fertile seed-plot
of democracy.

"We boast of our common
schools; Calvin was the father of popular education, the inventor of the system
of free schools. We are proud of the free States that fringe the Atlantic. The
pilgrims of Plymouth were Calvinists; the best influence in South Carolina came
from the Calvinists of France. William Penn was the disciple of the Huguenots;
the ships from Holland that first brought colonists to Manhattan were filled
with Calvinists. He that will not honor the memory, and respect the influence
of Calvin, knows but little of the origin of American liberty.

"If personal considerations
chiefly win applause, then, no one merits our sympathy and our admiration more
than Calvin; the young exile from France, who achieved an immortality of fame
before he was twenty-eight years of age; now boldly reasoning with the king of
France for religious liberty; now venturing as the apostle of truth to carry
the new doctrines into the heart of Italy, and hardly escaping from the fury of
papal persecution; the purest writer, the keenest dialectician of his century;
pushing free inquiry to its utmost verge, and yet valuing inquiry solely as the
means of arriving at fixed conclusions. The light of his genius scattered the
mask of darkness which superstition had held for centuries before the brow of
religion. His probity was unquestioned, his morals spotless. His only happiness
consisted in his 'task of glory and of good;' for sorrow found its way into all
his private relations. He was an exile from his country; he became for a season
an exile from his place of exile. As a husband he was doomed to mourn the
premature loss of his wife; as a father he felt the bitter pang of burying his
only child. Alone in the world, alone in a strange land, he went forward in his
career with serene resignation and inflexible firmness; no love of ease turned
him aside from his vigils; no fear of danger relaxed the nerve of his
eloquence; no bodily infirmities checked the incredible activity of his mind;
and so he continued, year after year, solitary and feeble, yet toiling for
humanity, till after a life of glory, he bequeathed to his personal heirs, a
fortune, in books and furniture, stocks and money, not exceeding two hundred
dollars, and to the world, a purer reformation, a republican spirit in
religion, with the kindred principles of republican liberty."

*Schaff, Philip, History of
the Christian Church, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997.
This material has been carefully compared, corrected¸ and emended (according to
the 1910 edition of Charles Scribner's Sons) by The Electronic Bible Society,
Dallas, TX, 1998.

648 Principal Tulloch of the University of St. Andrews, in Luther
and other Leaders of the Reformation, p. 203 (3d ed. 1883).

653 Supplex
exhortatio ad Caesarem Carolum V. de necessitate reformandae Ecclesiae, 1543, in Opera, VI.
453-534. English Version by Henry Beveridge, Calvin's Tracts, I.
123-237. The Strassburg editors call it a "libellus et ab argumenti
gravitate et a stili elegantia prae caeteris commendandus, hodieque lectu
dignissimus."
Proleg., p. xxviii. Calvin wrote this book at the request of Bucer, who
urged him to do so in a letter of Oct. 25, 1543. It appeared also in French.

656 Briefe, De Wett's ed. IV. 354. Still more striking is
Luther's judgment on the Roman Church (in his book against the Anabaptists):
"Ich sage, dass unter dem Papst die wahre Christenheit
ist; ja der rechte Ausbund der Christenheit, und viel frommer grosser Heiligen." Werke, XXVI. 257,
Erlangen ed. Möhler (in his Symbolik, pp. 421, 437) sees in such
expressions so many self-refutations of the Reformers in separating from the
Catholic Church, and forgets that they were cast out with curses and anathemas.

665 See above, pp. 95, 177, 211. Bullinger probably agreed with the
liberal view of his revered teacher and friend, as we may infer from his
unqualified commendation of the last Confession of Zwingli, in which he most
emphatically teaches the salvation of the pious heathen. Bullinger published it
five years after Zwingli's death, and said in the preface that in this book
Zwingli surpassed himself ("hoc libello sese superans de vera fide nescio quid cygneum
vicina morte cantavi ").

668 He concludes his Institutes with this sentence: "Since
this edict has been proclaimed by that celestial herald, Peter, 'we must obey
God rather than men,' let us console ourselves with this thought, that we truly
perform the obedience which God requires of us, when we suffer anything rather
than deviate from piety. And that our hearts may not fail us, Paul stimulates
us with another consideration: that Christ has redeemed us at the immense price
which our redemption cost him, that we may not be submissive to the corrupt
desires of men, much less be slaves to their impiety " (1 Cor. 7:23).

672 On the Colladon family see La France
Protestante,
IV. 510 sqq. (second ed. by Bordier). Another distinguished member was Nicolas
Colladon, who published a Life of Calvin in 1565, and succeeded him in the
chair of theology in 1566.

673 The Spanish censorship was applied to the vernacular versions of
the Bible, the works of Erasmus, all Protestant books, the Mystics and
Illuminati, the Molinists and Quietists. The natural consequence of this
tyranny was the decadence of intellectual and literary activity. See H. C. Lea,
Chapters from the Religious History of Spain connected with the Inquisition,
Philadelphia, 1890.

680 Melanchthon in this respect went much further and was willing to
submit to a papacy, provided the pope would tolerate the free preaching of the
gospel. He subscribed the Smalcaldian Articles with the restriction: "De pontifice statuo, si
evangelium admitteret, posse ei propter pacem et communem tranquillitatem
Christianorum ... superioritatem in episcopos ... jure humano etiam a nobis
permitti."

681 He says in this letter, dated Geneva, 5th Dec., 1554: "The
ancient Church indeed instituted patriarchates, and to different provinces
assigned certain primacies, that by this bond of concord the bishops might
remain more closely united among themselves. Exactly as if, at the present day,
one archbishop should have a certain pre-eminence in the illustrious kingdom of
Poland, not to lord it over the others, nor arrogate to himself a right of
which they were forcibly deprived; but for the sake of order to occupy the
first place in synods, and cherish a holy unity between his colleagues and
brethren. Then there might be either provincial or urban bishops, whose
functions should be particularly directed to the preservation of order. As
nature dictates, one of these should be chosen from each college, to whom this
care should be specially confided. But it is one thing to hold a moderate
dignity such as is not imcompatible with the abilities of a man, and another to
comprise the whole world under one overgrown government. What the Romanists
keep prating about one single head is then altogether nugatory, because neither
the sacred commandment of God, nor the established usage of the Church
sanctions a second head to be joined with Christ, whom alone the Heavenly
Father has set over all." Bonnet-Constable, III. 104. Comp. Inst. IV.
ch. IV. §§ 1-4; Henry II. 68, 375; III. 427 sqq.; Dyer, 283 sqq.; 456 sq.

682 By Weber, Henry, and Stähelin, and many others; also by
Kampschulte, who remarks (I. 471): "Der Grundgedanke,
von dem der Gesetzgeber Genfs ausgeht, ist die Theokratie. Er will in Genf den
Gottesstaat herstellen." But Amédée Roget (L'église et l'état àGenève du
vivant de Calvin)
and Merle d'Aubigné (vol. VII. 120) dissent from this view and point to the limitations
of the ecclesiastical power in Geneva. Merle d'Aubigné says: "Calvin was
not a theocrat, unless the term be taken in the most spiritual sense."

684 Conf. Helvetica II. ch. XXX.; Conf. Gallicana, ch. XXXIX. (God has
put the sword into the hands of magistrates to suppress crimes against the
first as well as the second table of his Commandments"); Conf.
Belgica, ch. XXXVI.; Conf. Scotica, Art. XXIV.; Thirty-nine Articles, Art.
XXXVII. (changed in the American recension); Westminster Conf. ch. XXIII.
(changed in the American recension).

691 This confirms the view I have taken of Calvin's extraordinary
calling (§ 73, pp. 313 sqq.). In his letter to Sadolet he expresses his firm
conviction that his ministry was from God. (See § 91, pp. 398 sqq.) Luther had
the same conviction concerning his own mission. On his return from the Wartburg
to Wittenberg, he wrote to the Elector Frederick of Saxony that he had his
gospel not from men, but from heaven, and that he was Christ's evangelist.

692 poimevne", pastores, Eph. 4:11. They are the same
with Bishops and Presbyters. " In calling those who preside over Churches
by the appellations of 'Bishops,' 'Presbyters,' and, 'Pastors,' without any
distinction, I have followed the usage of the Scripture." Inst. IV.
ch. III. § 8. Then he quotes Phil. 1:1; Tit. 1:5, 7; Acts 20:17, 28. See above,
p. 469.

698 In his Commentary on the passage. Comp. Inst. IV. ch. III.
§ 8: "Gubernatores
fuisse existimo seniores ex plebe delectos qui censurae morum et exercendae
disciplinae una cum episcopis praeessent." The distinction was first made by Calvin and
followed by many Presbyterian and some Lutheran divines, but it is denied by
some of the best modern exegetes. Paul requires all presbyters to be apt to
teach, 1 Tim. 3:2; 2 Tim. 2:2; 2:24. See Schaff's History of the Apostolic
Church, p. 529 sq.

712 Friederich Julius Stahl, a convert from Judaism, a very able
lawyer and statesman, and one of the chief champions of modern high-church
Lutheranism whose motto was, "Authority, not Majority" (although his
wife was Reformed and he himself attributed his conversion to the Reformed
Professor Krafft in Erlangen), says in his book, Die
Lutherische Kirche und die Union (1860), that Calvin introduced a new principle into
Protestantism; namely, the glorification of God by the full dominion of his
Word in the life of Christendom ("die
Verherrlichung Gottes durch die wirkliche volle Herrschaft seines Wortes im
Leben der Christenheit").

714 Inst. IV. ch. V. § 14. In the same chapter (§ 1) he says of
the bishops of his day that most of them were ignorant of the Scriptures, and
either drunkards or fornicators or gamblers or hunters. "The greatest
absurdity is that even boys, scarcely ten years of age, have, by the permission
of the pope, been made bishops." Pope Leo X. himself was made archbishop
in his eighth and cardinal-deacon in his thirteenth year. The Roman Church at
that time tolerated almost anything but heresy and disobedience to the pope,
which in her eyes is worse than the greatest moral crime.

715 He objects to the word clergy as originating in a mistake,
since Peter (1 Pet. 5:3) calls the whole Church God's klh'roi or
possessions; but he uses it for the sake of convenience.

716 Calvin quotes also Chrysostom's famous warning against the profanation
of the sacrament by the connivance of unfaithful priests: "Blood shalt be
required at your hands. Let us not be afraid of sceptres or diadems or imperial
robes; we have here a greater power. As for myself, I will rather give up my
body to death and suffer my blood to be shed, than I will be a partaker of this
pollution." There is a strong resemblance between Calvin and Chrysostom,
both as commentators and as fearless disciplinarians.

722 Calvin himself states this fact in a letter to Myconius of Basel,
March 27, 1545 (Opera, XII. 55; Bonnet, I. 428), where he says: "A
conspiracy of men and women has lately been discovered, who, for the space of
three years, had spread the plague through the city by what mischievous device
I know not. After fifteen women have been burnt, some men have even been
punished more severely, some have committed suicide in prison, and while
twenty-five are still kept prisoners,—the conspirators do not cease, notwithstanding,
to smear the door-locks of the dwelling-houses with their poisonous ointment.
You see in the midst of what perils we are tossed about. The Lord hath hitherto
preserved our dwelling, though it has more than once been attempted. It is well
that we know ourselves to be under His care."

724 Take the following rhetorical caricature of Calvin's and
Colladon's politico-religious code of laws from Audin (Life of Calvin,
ch. XXXVI. 354, Am. ed.):, There is but one word heard or read: Death.
Death to every one guilty of high treason against God; death to every one
guilty of high treason against the State; death to the son that strikes or
curses his father; death to the adulterer; death to heretics ... . During the
space of twenty years, commencing from the date of Calvin's recall, the history
of Geneva is a bloody drama, in which pity, dread, terror, indignation, and
tears, by turns, appear to seize upon the soul. At each step we encounter
chains, thongs, a stake, pincers, melted pitch, fire, and sulphur. And
throughout the whole there is blood. One imagines himself in Dante's Hell,
where sighs, groans, and lamentations continually resound."

725 This letter to Perrin is undated, but is probably from April,
1546. See Opera, XII. 338 sq. and Bonnet, II. 42 sq.

727 "Qui imbellis sum et meticulosus"; in the French ed., "tout foible et craintif que je
suis." He
more than once refers to his natural timidity; but he risked his life on
several occasions.

728 Bonnet, II. 133 sq. and 135; Opera, XII. 632 sqq. The date
of the letter to Viret is Dec. 17, not 14, as given by Bonnet.

729 To them must be traced the saying: "They would rather be with
Beza in hell than with Calvin in heaven." But Beza was in full accord with
Calvin in discipline as well as doctrine. The saying is reported by Papyrius
Masso: "Genevenses
inter jocos dicebant, malle se apud inferos cum Beza quam apud superos esse cum
Calvino."
Audin, p. 487.

731 The Galiffes fairly represent the animosity of these old families
to Calvin, but far surpass their ancestors in literary and moral culture and
respectability, which they owe to the effects of his reformation.

732 The synagogue of the Libertines in Jerusalem opposed Stephen, the
forerunner of Paul, Acts 6:9.

733 Gieseler connects both sects, vol. III. Part I. 385; Comp. II.
Part III. 266. Strype notices the existence of a similar sect in England at a
later period, Annals, vol. II. Part II. 287 sqq. (quoted by Dyer, p.
177)

734 They called St. Matthew, the publican, usurier (a usurer); St. Paul, potcassé
(a broken
vessel); St. Peter, on account of his denial of Christ, renonceur
de Dieu; St.
John, jouvenceau et follet (a childish youth), etc.

735 Bonnet, in a note on Calvin's letter to the queen (I. 429), says
of her: "In the later years of her life [she died in 1549] her piety
gradually degenerated into a kind of contemplative mysticism, whose chief
characteristic was indif-ference towards outward forms, uniting the external
ordinances of the Roman Church with the inward cherishing of a purer
faith." See above, p. 323.

741 Peter Wernly, a canon of St. Peter's, was killed in a fight with
the Protestants, while endeavoring to save himself by flight, May 4, 1533.

742 "Nota bin mon dire." See the original of the placard in Opera, XII. 546, note
8. Gaberel and Ruchat give it in modern French. The editors of the Opera refer
panfar to Abel Poupin ("Panfar ventrosum dicit Poupinum").

743 In the case of Gentilis and Servet, however, no mention is made of
the torture.

745 The sources for the case of Gruet are the acts of the criminal
process and sentence, printed in Opera, XII. 563-568 (in French);
letters of Calvin to Viret, July 2, 24, 1547 (in Opera, XII. 545, 559,
in Bonnet II. 108 and 114); Calvin's report on the blasphemous book of Gruet,
in Opera, XIII. 568-572 (in French, also printed in Henry, II. 120, and
in Letters by Jules Bonnet, French ed., I. 311; English ed., II. 254); Reg.
du Conseil, July 25, 1547, and May 22, 1550, noticed in Annal. 409,
465.—Of modern writers, see Henry, (II. 410, 439, 441 sqq.; abridged in
Stebbing's translation, II. 64 sqq., without the Beilage); Audin, ch. XXXVI.
(pp. 396 sqq. of the English translation); Dyer, 213 sqq.; and Stähelin, I. 399
sqq.

746 Oct. 21, 1540. A day afterwards, Dufour was appointed by the
Council, and went in his place. Annal. 267. See above, p. 430.

747 Beza calls him "vanissimus, sed audax et ambitiosus " (XXI. 138). Audin, the
patron of all the enemies of Calvin, describes Perrin as "a man of noble
nature, who wore the sword with great grace, dressed in good taste, and
conversed with much facility; but a boaster at table and at the Council, where
he deafened every one with his boastful loquacity, his fits of self-love, and
his theatrical airs ... . As to the rest, like all men of this stamp, he had an
excellent heart, was devoted as a friend, with cool blood, and patriotic even
to extremes. At table it was his delight to imitate the Reformer, elongating
his visage, winking his eyes, and assuming the air of an anchorite of the
Thebaid" (p. 390). Perrin's chief defender is the younger Galiffe.

748 "Prodigiosa furia." Letter to Farel, Sept. 1,
1546 (in Opera, XII. 377 sq., and Bonnet, II. 56). In the same letter he
says: "She shamelessly undertakes the defence of all crimes." She did
not spare Calvin's wife, and calumniously asserted among her own friends that
Idelette must have been a harlot because Calvin confessed, at the baptism of
his infant, that she and her former husband had been Anabaptists. So Calvin
reports to Farel, Aug. 21, 1547 (in Opera, XII. 580 sq.; Bonnet, II.
124). Audin apologizes for Francesca, as "one of those women whom our old
Corneille would have taken for heroines; excitable, choleric, fond of pleasure,
enamoured of dancing, and hating Calvin as Luther hated a monk" (p. 390).

749 Calvin reminded Francesca on that occasion that "her father
had been already convicted of one adultery [in 1531], that the proof of another
was at hand, and that there was a strong rumor of a third. I stated that her
brother had openly contemned and derided both the Council and the
ministers." Letter to Farel, April, 1546. She told him in reply: "Méchant
homme, vous voulez boire le sang de notre famille, mais vous sortirez de Genève
avant nous."
See the notes in Opera, XII. 334.

750 See Calvin's letters to Farel, April, 1546, and Sept. 1, 1546 (in Opera,
XII. 334 sqq., 377 sq., and Bonnet II. 38, 56), and extracts from the Registers
of the Consistory and the Council in Annal. 377 sqq. Comp. Dyer, 208
sq.; Audin, 391 sq. Audin gives a lively description of the wedding and dancing
at Belle Rive, and the examination before the Consistory.

751 See the extracts from the Rég. du
Conseil March
and April, 1547, in Annal. 399-406.

756 Dec. 16 (not Sept. 16) is the date given in the Reg. of the
Venerable Company, quoted in Annal. 418. Beza briefly alludes to the scene;
Calvin gives an account of it in a letter to Viret, dated Dec. 17, 1547, a day
after the occurrence (in Opera, XII. 632 sq.). This letter is misdated,
Dec. 14, by Bonnet (II. 134, apparently a typographical error), and Sept. 17 by
Henry (II. 434) and Dyer (p. 219). The last error crept into the Latin
editions, against the manuscripts, which give Dec. 17. The letter is defective
at the beginning and was first published by Beza. Galiffe overlooked it. See
the notes of the Strassburg editors, XII. 633.

766 Annal. 378 and 380. The ministers interceded in behalf of
De la Mare, and the Council gave him six dollars (écus). Maigret was
found guilty of neglecting his duties and visiting houses of ill fame.

777 Thomas M'Crie, Life of John Knox, p. 129 (Philadelphia ed.
1845). I quoted a sentence from this letter by anticipation on p. 263, but
cannot omit it at this place.

778 See his autobiography, written in 1642, and his "Respublica
Christianopolitana," or "Christianopolis," 1619,—a
description of a Christian model commonwealth, dedicated to John Arndt, the
author of "True Christianity." Comp. Hossbach, Das
Leben Val. Andreae, p. 10; Henry, p. 196 (small biography); Tholuck's article in Herzog, I.
388 sqq.; Schaff, Creeds, I. 460 (which gives the German original).
Andreae's memory was revived by the great Herder. Spener said: "If I could
raise any one from the dead for the welfare of the Church, it would be
Andreae."